Ce sujet est fermé
Why should your character be aware of a gameplay mechanic?
In Sylvius' world, there is no "gameplay" and thus no "gameplay mechanics". His characters are "people" living in a "world" and the "gameplay" is the "physics" of that world. So if he can only use 8 abilities per character, the characters themselves in their "real world" must have some "justification" for why they can only use 8 abilities--either that they only HAVE 8 abilities, or that something, somehow, is physically restraining them from using more than 8.
I like to have a "physics" of the game world in the sense that I don't want enemies and allies to be on completely different scales using completely different and unrelated abilities that operate under different rules. I find that pretty tiresome most of the time, but if the gameplay is reasonably balanced and interesting, I can overlook it. (A LOT of games give enemies abilities players have no access to. But the converse is also often true.) Sylvius wants gameplay that somehow creates an entirely internally-consistent "world".
The funny part is that he refuses to come up with his own justifications--he expects them to be provided for him by the game (or, at least, not impeded by the game, in the case of his roleplaying headcanon). But the devs don't care about that sort of thing. They're making a game, not a Thedas Simulation.
As far as I'm concerned, *esthetic* realism is great--I like armor and weapons that at least *look* functional (and don't float six inches off your back), buildings that look like someone could live in them (instead of a bunch of boxes connected by rectangles), etc. When it comes to purely mechanical gameplay--if it's a functional system that's actually fun and interesting, screw anything else. Eight abilities? I'll take FIVE if it keeps me INTERESTED in the combat for the entire game (and maybe even for a couple of extra playthroughs, please!). Granted, it may not. But I'm not going to assume that it won't for various completely spurious rationales such as "well in tabletop . . ." or "in the other games . . ." or even "well in REAL LIFE you don't forget things between encounters . . ." IT IS A GAME. There is no reason why it should reflect any qualities of other games or anything that happens in real life--in fact, it should discard both as an impedance if it interferes with system functionality.
One can argue that a system that doesn't have this *type* of system functionality might be a *better* system in some respects or even possibly in all respects. It might even be true. Origins and DA2 were not inspired systems. They were barely serviceable and certainly painfully dull in their tiny scope. Does this new UI information point to DA:I being better? No. Does it point to it being worse overall, as a coherent game with interesting mechanics? Not really.
The ONLY mechanical thing I've seen thus far that REALLY seems to point one way or another is the crafting system, which seems to be an order of magnitude better than any crafting that's come out of this series SO far.
But if it's ONLY as good as Origins or DA2 (mechanically, gameplay wise) I'll be pretty happy. I played both of those games through more than once, which to me is well worth the money, and I love preorder swag so it's preorders for me all the way with these games. It doesn't bug me one whit if other people would rather not preorder. I don't even really care if the game is a financial success or not. I'm just looking forward to playing it. I expect to enjoy it quite a lot. But I don't see that there's much value in placing a lot of complicated and specific limitations on exactly what I will or won't participate in enjoying. Take it on its own terms. Don't load it up with three tons of freight and expect it to fly.
Retour en haut
