27 réponses à ce sujet

[jacuwi]

One of the biggest things that I dislike about RPGs like Dragon Age is when I start a new character, they are always at level one with very little experience. From a story standpoint this makes little sense, since even most apprentice mages know how to cast more than two spells and most warriors know how to do more than hold a sword. Games with New Game + don't really have this problem, somce you learn the basics the first time around and can just pick up where you left off the second time.

So do you think when we make a new character, we should have the option to start at, say, level 5? That way you can still start from the bottom if you wish, but you also have the option to start the game with a more defined character. How hard would that be to implement?

[MetalGear312]

I'd much rather bust my ass on the first go, then click new game + and start over with my level whatever character.

[Eudaemonium]

Just assume that level one is actually where you've got to after years of basic training. Or accept it as a gameplay abstraction. It makes less sense with companions, though.

I always liked it in some JRPGs like FF5 and FF7 where the characters started at a higher level. Like Cecil being like level 10 since he was an accomplished warrior and general.

[Schmonozov]

No

[ManOfSteel]

Hopefully we'll get a New Game + that will solve this 'issue' for playthroughs following the first. Although it doesn't make much sense for a character like Shepard to start out at level 1, I'm happy to accept it on gameplay grounds, although starting out at Level 30 in ME3 from an imported ME2 game was much more preferable to me. I much prefer New Game + playthroughs however. It's one of the reasons I've played the Mass Effect games so many times.

[Abraham_uk]

One of the biggest things that I dislike about RPGs like Dragon Age is when I start a new character, they are always at level one with very little experience. From a story standpoint this makes little sense, since even most apprentice mages know how to cast more than two spells and most warriors know how to do more than hold a sword. Games with New Game + don't really have this problem, somce you learn the basics the first time around and can just pick up where you left off the second time.

So do you think when we make a new character, we should have the option to start at, say, level 5? That way you can still start from the bottom if you wish, but you also have the option to start the game with a more defined character. How hard would that be to implement?

 

Pretty easy to implement. Though increasing the level number alone won't resolve your issue.

 

Level numbers are arbitrary numbers.

Level 1, or level 10 doesn't really make much difference.

 

 

Suggestion 1: If level 1 has more spell/talent points to spend as well as more stat points to spend akin to your "level 5" would this resolve the problem? Level 1 means, where the player character was at the start of the game. It doesn't mean "absolute zero point on character progression".

 

 

Suggestion 2: You could have a long origin story based on which of the 9 specialisations you picked. This origin story shows your development from a young child to an adult. After 5 hours of gameplay you reach level 5 and begin the main storyline.

[azrael_1289]

Didn't ME3 already do this if we imported Shepard from ME2.

[Abraham_uk]

Didn't ME3 already do this if we imported Shepard from ME2.

Indeed.

 

You can start at level 30 and continue your progression to level 60.

 

 

 

Baldur's Gate 2 does this, though without the importing feature.

[Gtdef]

A new game should start at lvl 1 and get to lvl 5-6 by the end of the prologue. That way it has a smooth learning curve. Try starting a Mask of the betrayer game having to make a new lvl 18 character on the spot with dnd ruleset. Even if you are familiar with it, It's total chaos and if you are not, then you will have a really hard time in the game.

 

Dragon age isn't that hard to figure out but it can still be overwhelming for the first levels. So no, just keep it simple. The model has worked perfectly fine, it doesn't have to change now. The problems arise when the build becomes complete so late that by that time it doesn't matter, like most DA2 builds where you need to be lvl 15 to have full class synergy and by that time it just becomes overkill.

 

Personally I dislike NG+ but whatever, if people think that it will make them enjoy the game more then let them have it. No big deal. I personally won't use it.

[Wulfram]

I get the desire to ease new players in, but it does get a bit tedious.

 

I wonder if we couldn't have a tweaked, less tutorially, version of the opening sequence that starts you at level 5 or so and puts you up against more serious opposition.  Which could be unlocked for people who start the game again, or for people who import?

 

In previous games I'd effectively get that by simply cheating myself some XP and letting the scaling take care of it.  But that won't work in DA:I

[azrael_1289]

Baldur's Gate 2 does this, though without the importing feature.

Yeah, forgot about that.

[ShaggyWolf]

I agree, New Game + is where it's at.

 

I also agree with Eudaemonium, character level 1 is not the bottom of the food chain in pretty much any RPG. I think that misconception occurs when you examine the technicalities of the game rules. Take D&D for example. The player characters generally start at level 1. Level 1 in D&D is supposed to mean that your character is experienced enough to know the basics of their class. They can actually be defined as a ranger or a paladin instead of a whelp in training. It gets wierd though when you think about the game rules and realize that a random town peasant would also technically be level 1. How are they on the same combat tier as a trained paladin? This inconsistancy is circumvented by preventing combat with such creatures. A Dungeon Master would likely let the players effortlessly slaughter helpless peasants until the town's trained militia can muster and oppose them. Video games like Dragon Age simply don't allow the players to fight creatures that aren't intended for combat. So even if the game engine defines the Denerim barkeep as a level 1 character, that info is rendered irrelevant because of the fact that he will never fight. Tricks like that give character level 1 the appropriate significance, and is essentially the reason why games don't start players at a higher level.

 

The idea that a level 1 Dragon Age character doesn't have enough abilities to express a reasonably experienced character is a separate issue altogether.

[aaarcher86]

I think it's fine.  From a mage standpoint, the fact that I can cast/control a few spells at the beginning would be my 'training beforehand,' I guess.  I don't know.  It's never bothered me, but I don't look for everything to make complete sense RPG wise in a video game.

[Fearsome1]

Dragon's Dogma [later Dark Arisen] had the whole New Game+ thing and I really appreciated that aspect. I never wiped out my hard won status and remained NG+ for the duration as I leveled up to 200 and grabbed all 50 achievements. Put my name on the list of New Games+ advocates.

[NoForgiveness]

I like starting at level one just because it feels like a fresh start. But I'm not opposed to ng+ as long as the enemy levels start at approx. your level. I would not want them to start at lvl 1 when I'm like 30 something. That would just be boring.

[Abraham_uk]

I get the desire to ease new players in, but it does get a bit tedious.

 

I wonder if we couldn't have a tweaked, less tutorially, version of the opening sequence that starts you at level 5 or so and puts you up against more serious opposition.  Which could be unlocked for people who start the game again, or for people who import?

 

In previous games I'd effectively get that by simply cheating myself some XP and letting the scaling take care of it.  But that won't work in DA:I

 

 

You could have an optional tutorial that takes you through levels 1-5.

(Get on with it!) type players will choose the option to skip this and start at level 5.

[azrael_1289]

You could have an optional tutorial that takes you through levels 1-5.

(Get on with it!) type players will choose the option to skip this and start at level 5.

ESO did something similar.

[DaySeeker]

Or make level 1 more than just one ability and attack, and make tutorials skippable.

[hexaligned]

I agree, New Game + is where it's at.

 

I also agree with Eudaemonium, character level 1 is not the bottom of the food chain in pretty much any RPG. I think that misconception occurs when you examine the technicalities of the game rules. Take D&D for example. The player characters generally start at level 1. Level 1 in D&D is supposed to mean that your character is experienced enough to know the basics of their class. They can actually be defined as a ranger or a paladin instead of a whelp in training. It gets wierd though when you think about the game rules and realize that a random town peasant would also technically be level 1. How are they on the same combat tier as a trained paladin? This inconsistancy is circumvented by preventing combat with such creatures. A Dungeon Master would likely let the players effortlessly slaughter helpless peasants until the town's trained militia can muster and oppose them. Video games like Dragon Age simply don't allow the players to fight creatures that aren't intended for combat. So even if the game engine defines the Denerim barkeep as a level 1 character, that info is rendered irrelevant because of the fact that he will never fight. Tricks like that give character level 1 the appropriate significance, and is essentially the reason why games don't start players at a higher level.

 

The idea that a level 1 Dragon Age character doesn't have enough abilities to express a reasonably experienced character is a separate issue altogether.

They are a level one peasant.  Turns out a level one peasant isn't as good as a level one paladin.  They receive the "standing around and staring vacantly at nothing" ability, rather than lay on hands. Which is nowhere near as useful in adventures.

 

I prefer skill/use based "leveling" systems myself, I vote we just migrate to one of those.

[meganbytez]

i feel like starting off at "level 5" would be the same thing as starting out at "level 1" if its just where you start. you do start out with basic skills. you could say one learned from their previous experience. 

doing a new game + would put you at a high level like how they did with mass effect. altho these are different protags in dragon age. 

[Abraham_uk]

They are a level one peasant.  Turns out a level one peasant isn't as good as a level one paladin.  They receive the "standing around and staring vacantly at nothing" ability, rather than lay on hands. Which is nowhere near as useful in adventures.

 

I prefer skill/use based "leveling" systems myself, I vote we just migrate to one of those.

 

True, but "standing around and staring vacantly at nothing" avoids fights.

Avoiding fights is arguably the best defence. It even trumps a mighty good offence.

[Aran Linvail]

I dont care about starting at Level 1 , a new Game + is a great idea , what i really really hate is level Cap , now thats something i wish they take away....

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I understand the appeal of NG+, but I'd never use it. If I'm going to play a second run of a game, I want a new experience. New class, new face, new abilities.

 

Maybe if, after completing the game once, your new toons started at a  higher level, I'd try it. not the same character over and over though.

[Dabrikishaw]

Mass Effect 2 had the worst newgame plus I have ever seen in any RPG, Eastern or Western. If this game has one, let it not be like that.

[jncicesp]

I dont care about starting at Level 1 , a new Game + is a great idea , what i really really hate is level Cap , now thats something i wish they take away....

I'm just scared of being over powered, Level caps are annoying but I wouldn't mind a skill cap or even a talent cap