144 réponses à ce sujet

[GoldenAbel]

Nowhere did I say they were good, I simply pointed out that not every weapon that you plan to use can, or should be in a sheath, and that not everyone who fought back in those days had actual armor to wear. However, adding sheathes won't resolve the issue, it will just have weapons in sheathes floating.

Cool, so were back on point that floaty weapons aren't aesthetically pleasing. I don't know what's so confusing about a sword having a sheathe. Or holsters. Or straps. You know, something practical. Same with staves or maces. Why should I not expect these things? If I ride a horse I expect a seated mount and reins.  

[Rosey]

You guys just want everything don't you? Gosh. They finally are giving us bow strings instead of shooting arrows with a piece of wood and "yea its totally not magic". Now you want Sheaths too?

 

[GoldenAbel]

You guys just want everything don't you? Gosh. They finally are giving us bow strings instead of shooting arrows with a piece of wood and "yea its totally not magic". Now you want Sheaths too?

 

If you don't say anything you won't be heard. A step in the right direction never hurt anybody

[DisturbedJim83]

If you don't say anything you won't be heard. A step in the right direction never hurts anybody

I have the perfect answer for floaty weapons since this is Dragon Age: ENCHANTMENT!

[Maraas]

If you don't say anything you won't be heard.

Do you really think it's their artistic vision or something that weapons must float? Do you think they wouldn't do it if they could because it just wouldn't occur to them without someone telling?

[Rosey]

1. I was teasing, thus the smiley faces at the end to denote that I was kidding
2. You're not wrong, speaking up about something you find lacking is a good way to get it changed if you are bringing it up politely and in a constructive way.
3. but I also think this issue is plucking at strings. You're asking for something that adds "realism" to a video game that is anything but.
4. Ha! Plucking at strings.. I mentioned bow strings in my earlier post.. I made a funny

[GoldenAbel]

Do you really think it's their artistic vision or something that weapons must float? Do you think they wouldn't do it if they could because it just wouldn't occur to them without someone telling?

Surprise surprise, someone is suggesting something be fixed for the better? On the Feedback and Suggestions thread? Insane! And here we have someone arguing as to why I shouldn't think of ways to improve the game. Never thought I'd see the day where I was reprimanded for that.

 

 

1. I was teasing, thus the smiley faces at the end to denote that I was kidding
2. You're not wrong, speaking up about something you find lacking is a good way to get it changed if you are bringing it up politely and in a constructive way.
3. but I also think this issue is plucking at strings. You're asking for something that adds "realism" to a video game that is anything but.
4. Ha! Plucking at strings.. I mentioned bow strings in my earlier post.. I made a funny

 

I wasn't imagining you were being super serious but on the note of realism. What you're saying implies that "we don't have to have be logicig or have basic reasoning cuz we r games that dont need any of that

[Rosey]

I wasn't imagining you were being super serious but on the note of realism. What you're saying implies that "we don't have to have be logicig or have basic reasoning cuz we r games that dont need any of that

 

Actually that's not at all what I was meaning to say. I apologize if it came off that way.

 

I totally get a thing (this case being floating weapons) being the one thing that can really sort of break the 4th wall for you, as it were. Clunky attack animations and weird teeth/mouth movements can do that for me. 

 

Generally speaking the argument is that in real life, you'd need a sword sheath in order to safely carry your sword hands free. That's true. But in the same line of thinking, we're playing around in a fictional world with magic and dragons, neither of which exist in real life. So it's really not that terribly hard to suspend belief when it comes via sheaths vrs no sheaths.

 

In the same line of thinking that people don't tend to have hair that is plastic and unmoving. Mind you not all hair moves in the same ways that other hair might. While it's nice to have "tress fx" because it looks more realistic, it's also costly and a resource hog that I would rather be spent anywhere else - up to and including gameplay itself.

 

All in all though, my whole point was to lighten the mood a little, not cause more distress.

[GoldenAbel]

Actually that's not at all what I was meaning to say. I apologize if it came off that way.

 

I totally get a thing (this case being floating weapons) being the one thing that can really sort of break the 4th wall for you, as it were. Clunky attack animations and weird teeth/mouth movements can do that for me. 

 

Generally speaking the argument is that in real life, you'd need a sword sheath in order to safely carry your sword hands free. That's true. But in the same line of thinking, we're playing around in a fictional world with magic and dragons, neither of which exist in real life. So it's really not that terribly hard to suspend belief when it comes via sheaths vrs no sheaths.

 

In the same line of thinking that people don't tend to have hair that is plastic and unmoving. Mind you not all hair moves in the same ways that other hair might. While it's nice to have "tress fx" because it looks more realistic, it's also costly and a resource hog that I would rather be spent anywhere else - up to and including gameplay itself.

 

All in all though, my whole point was to lighten the mood a little, not cause more distress.

It's the thinking that bothers me. As I said before, it's like saying you don't want to develop the reins on a horse because that would cost money. I feel like I'm being told "You don't need to see the reins or the mount, trust us, you're controlling it with your magical hands." Suspending disbelief is not the answer to this flaw. 

 

For example: In GTA , I can suspend my disbelief of the PC having 20 rifles up their booty holes because that's part of the gameplay. It's money well spent to make a realized world in the ever growing RPG space. I don't even need full on detailed sheathes, Take a look at Red  Dead, the PC had a simple leather holster on his back to hold multiple rifle types. Just something that holds the weapons properly. 

[Zatche]

Surprise surprise, someone is suggesting something be fixed for the better? On the Feedback and Suggestions thread? Insane! And here we have someone arguing as to why I shouldn't think of ways to improve the game. Never thought I'd see the day where I was reprimanded for that.

 

People are stating that while it would be nice to see sheathes, we don't think it would be worth the development costs. Maybe some of us forget the "it would be nice" part, so we seem more aggressive about it than we actually are, but no one is "reprimanding" you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is just it. This "nuance" you talk about is completely divorced from the game. It is, at best, non-interactive scenery, while the interactive portions of the game involve laughable bits of stupidity, nonsense, bad programming, and nose-leading. You don't get credit for having substance because your devs vomited a bunch of "lore" books and one-sentence references all over the place. You get credit for having substance when you actually start DOING something with that lore, tying it together, integrating your plots and having character interactions that aren't just info-dumps.

I disagree. The setting exists as fodder from which the player's imagination can create objectives and motivation. Skyrim does this quite well.

The question you should ask at the start of any game is not "What am I supposed to do?" Instead, you should ask "What CAN I do?"

Honestly, if Skyrim didn't have action combat and didn't crash so often, I'd have little reason to play anything else.

[GoldenAbel]

People are stating that while it would be nice to see sheathes, we don't think it would be worth the development costs. Maybe some of us forget the "it would be nice" part, so we seem more aggressive about it than we actually are, but no one is "reprimanding" you.

I think sometimes it's forgotten that Bioware puts in money for content that only a fraction (and it can be a very small fraction) of people that actually see it. Did you see the number of people that played the Dwarven origins? A measly 5% from the data collected from connected platforms. So it seems to me that Bioware does do things that "wouldn't be worth the cost". Oh, and on the "reprimanding" bit. I apologize, perhaps "rebuking" is a better way to describe it?

[Schreckstoff]

I disagree. The setting exists as fodder from which the player's imagination can create objectives and motivation. Skyrim does this quite well.

The question you should ask at the start of any game is not "What am I supposed to do?" Instead, you should ask "What CAN I do?"

Honestly, if Skyrim didn't have action combat and didn't crash so often, I'd have little reason to play anything else.

So in a story driven game I should motivate myself to do what? I get that you see every game as a sandbox game but not every player does.

Many are fine with the confines set by the developer and just want to experience it the way it was planned to be consumed.

What I can do is not the first thing I ask myself when playing but what I want to do and ultimately whether it is fun/captivating to.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

No, it's not. You spend all your life staring DIRECTLY AT your nose. And it's not a big deal for you. You don't even notice it.

 

*everyone is now noticing their nose*

[Sylvius the Mad]

So in a story driven game I should motivate myself to do what? I get that you see every game as a sandbox game but not every player does.

Many are fine with the confines set by the developer and just want to experience it the way it was planned to be consumed.

What I can do is not the first thing I ask myself when playing but what I want to do and ultimately whether it is fun/captivating to.

But what you want to do should be constrained by what you can.  If you choose based on what you want before you know what's possible, you run the risk of being disappointed by the game's limits.

 

My concern is players who wait to be told what to do by the game.  Like at the start of Oblivion, the Emperor tells the PC to seek out the captain of his guard.  A lot of players headed off to do just that.  I wondered why I would want to do that.

 

In BG, when the PC leaves Candlekeep, he is told to go to the Friendly Arm Inn.  Why would he want to do that?  Why might he want not to?

 

What I find fun in a roleplaying game is, oddly enough, roleplaying.  Roleplaying does not entail being told a story.  Roleplaying involves crafting my own.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think sometimes it's forgotten that Bioware puts in money for content that only a fraction (and it can be a very small fraction) of people that actually see it. Did you see the number of people that played the Dwarven origins? A measly 5% from the data collected from connected platforms. So it seems to me that Bioware does do things that "wouldn't be worth the cost". Oh, and on the "reprimanding" bit. I apologize, perhaps "rebuking" is a better way to describe it?

That data was collected too soon.  I suspect that the sorts of players who replay the games are the sorts of players who play a more diverse set of characters.

[GoldenAbel]

That data was collected too soon.  I suspect that the sorts of players who replay the games are the sorts of players who play a more diverse set of characters.

From the source I was able to dig up, it was retrieved sometime in 2012. Around the time when DA3's protagonist was announced to only be human.

 

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who actually finish games, let alone replay them

[Allan Schumacher]

People perceive a value in having a choice presented even if they never take it.

[Zatche]

I think sometimes it's forgotten that Bioware puts in money for content that only a fraction (and it can be a very small fraction) of people that actually see it. Did you see the number of people that played the Dwarven origins? A measly 5% from the data collected from connected platforms. So it seems to me that Bioware does do things that "wouldn't be worth the cost". Oh, and on the "reprimanding" bit. I apologize, perhaps "rebuking" is a better way to describe it?

 

That's a fair point, but at the same time, there are also plenty of features that would have been added, but were ultimately cut due to time and cost constraints. They try not to not let us find out about those, so that we don't wonder what could've been, but it happens for all games.

 

It's a judgment call for the developer to take. I don't think we should consider it inexcusable or lazy (words I do not believe you used) every time a feature we want is not included, even if other games do include them. Only sometimes, and for me, not this one.

[GoldenAbel]

That's a fair point, but at the same time, there are also plenty of features that would have been added, but were ultimately cut due to time and cost constraints. They try not to not let us find out about those, so that we don't wonder what could've been, but it happens for all games.

 

It's a judgment call for the developer to take. I don't think we should consider it inexcusable or lazy (words I do not believe you used) every time a feature we want is not included, even if other games do include them. Only sometimes, and for me, not this one.

I think I did say something like that in a previous post. Where I agree that this isn't necessarily DA's fatal flaw, it is a flaw nonetheless. It can be directed at many games but I was being as topical as I can. 

 

I know I'm name dropping a lot of other games but look at The Last of Us. There are tons and tons of details poured into the levels. Stories that can only be inferred from the ravaged environment and notes that make that world feel alive. Did the devs need to put it there? No, but it strengthens the narrative of the main characters. When I see that I think, "Hell yeah, what an awesome but small detail they made for people that trek off the beaten track". Now we have even stronger tech and this is still a thing that isn't addressed?  I just don't like being told my complaint is invalid because of a money issue. 

 

If I see it the way you do then I wouldn't be able to complain like I usually do. So I'll definitely say it's worth it because I want the devs to take it into consideration.

[Schreckstoff]

I think I did say something like that in a previous post. Where I agree that this isn't necessarily DA's fatal flaw, it is a flaw nonetheless. It can be directed at many games but I was being as topical as I can.

I know I'm name dropping a lot of other games but look at The Last of Us. There are tons and tons of details poured into the levels. Stories that can only be inferred from the ravaged environment and notes that make that world feel alive. Did the devs need to put it there? No, but it strengthens the narrative of the main characters. When I see that I think, "Hell yeah, what an awesome but small detail they made for people that trek off the beaten track". Now we have even stronger tech and this is still a thing that isn't addressed? I just don't like being told my complaint is invalid because of a money issue.

If I see it the way you do then I wouldn't be able to complain like I usually do. So I'll definitely say it's worth it because I want the devs to take it into consideration.

Okay I have to stop you there. How long is TLoU, 15 hours tops obviously Naughty Dog can put much more detail into small things if they are designing a game that's about a tenth as long. Not to forget that TLoU isn't open world, entirely story driven, has stupid AI, totally predetermined characters,..

That comparison is beyond apples and oranges.

[GoldenAbel]

Okay I have to stop you there. How long is TLoU, 15 hours tops obviously Naughty Dog can put much more detail into small things if they are designing a game that's about a tenth as long. Not to forget that TLoU isn't open world, entirely story driven, has stupid AI, totally predetermined characters,..

That comparison is beyond apples and oranges.

I could be talking about a smartphone game and I would still be making the same point all over. I'm not buying the principle that just because something is unnecessary it means that it has no value. If you need something more recognizable, take a look at DA's codex entries or Skyrim's book system if gameplay length is your issue. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

People perceive a value in having a choice presented even if they never take it.

I certainly do.

 

I once wrote a lengthy treatise about that based on a single piece of level design in NWN2.

[In Exile]

I disagree. The setting exists as fodder from which the player's imagination can create objectives and motivation. Skyrim does this quite well.

The question you should ask at the start of any game is not "What am I supposed to do?" Instead, you should ask "What CAN I do?"

Honestly, if Skyrim didn't have action combat and didn't crash so often, I'd have little reason to play anything else.

Well, apparently, what I can do doesn't include building realized relationships with other human beings that have in-world consequences, which is pretty important. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

From the source I was able to dig up, it was retrieved sometime in 2012. Around the time when DA3's protagonist was announced to only be human.

 

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who actually finish games, let alone replay them

I replay games a lot more often than I finish them.

 

And we likely don't share a common definition of "finish" in this context.