I use one playstyle in all roleplaying games. It's called roleplaying.I don't have a DAI playstyle yet since I haven't played DAI.
I use one playstyle in all roleplaying games. It's called roleplaying.
That's all I want to do in these games. Features that help with roleplaying are good. Features that hinder roleplaying are bad.
Why does it worry me when I'm in 100% agreement with Sylvius? 
The question still remains: What happens when a tactic tries to fire and the ability is not on your hot bar?
It concerns me that you worry about that.Why does it worry me when I'm in 100% agreement with Sylvius?
Completely different. Told you that earlier. They can't have a separate character model for every injury possibe in the game. They do, however, add injuries you need to heal if you get knocked out by a firespell or dragon's breath. You seem to ignore this bit every time.
One of the most powerful mages, according to he lore, only being able to use 8 spells is ridicilous. especially since every mage in the previous games can cast plenty more.
How does this distinguish your example from his?
The key point being that what manifests as gameplay rarely coincides with what manifests in cut-scenes/dialogue. That Alistair can survive being mauled by a dragon or being torched in his own armor or any number of other things doesn't do much for the argument that we don't have gameplay segregation.
If we were really worried about this sort of consistency, every Mage character would be decapitated every time they're "hit" by any sort of melee attack in their dingy little robes.
That's nonsense. As long as all of the game content is consistent, we don't need the segregation.How does this distinguish your example from his?
The key point being that what manifests as gameplay rarely coincides with what manifests in cut-scenes/dialogue. That Alistair can survive being mauled by a dragon or being torched in his own armor or any number of other things doesn't do much for the argument that we don't have gameplay segregation.
If we were really worried about this sort of consistency, every Mage character would be decapitated every time they're "hit" by any sort of melee attack in their dingy little robes.
How does this distinguish your example from his?
The key point being that what manifests as gameplay rarely coincides with what manifests in cut-scenes/dialogue. That Alistair can survive being mauled by a dragon or being torched in his own armor or any number of other things doesn't do much for the argument that we don't have gameplay segregation.
If we were really worried about this sort of consistency, every Mage character would be decapitated every time they're "hit" by any sort of melee attack in their dingy little robes.
I'm confused as to what you are comparing.
One is the limitations of the graphics engine to display damage.
The other is the abstract representation of health to mimic survival in combat.
The third is limiting combat to 8 abilities and thereby nullifying the strategic choices you made when you chose your abilities and artificially reducing your tactical options for the sole purpose of making you less effective in any given combat.
I'm unsure of how they relate to each other.
[The third is limiting combat to 8 abilities and thereby nullifying the strategic choices you made when you chose your abilities and artificially reducing your tactical options for the sole purpose of making you less effective in any given combat.
I'm confused as to what you are comparing.
One is the limitations of the graphics engine to display damage.
The other is the abstract representation of health to mimic survival in combat.
The third is limiting combat to 8 abilities and thereby nullifying the strategic choices you made when you chose your abilities and artificially reducing your tactical options for the sole purpose of making you less effective in any given combat.
I'm unsure of how they relate to each other.
It isn't nullifying a strategic choice. Choosing a 9th ability that you can only use with preparation is a strategic choice in itself - it is just a different choice from choosing a 9th ability that is always available to you.
The problem is not some high-level strategy, but rather than the mechanics that rely on making the choice strategic are all bad (basically, trial and error gameplay or save-scumming).
I'm confused as to what you are comparing.
One is the limitations of the graphics engine to display damage.
The other is the abstract representation of health to mimic survival in combat.
The third is limiting combat to 8 abilities and thereby nullifying the strategic choices you made when you chose your abilities and artificially reducing your tactical options for the sole purpose of making you less effective in any given combat.
I'm unsure of how they relate to each other.
Rawgrim made the comparison with regard to lore:
"[Vivienne] One of the most powerful mages, according to the lore, only being able to use 8 spells is ridicilous. especially since every mage in the previous games can cast plenty more."
It's pretty applicable, as he's demanding that what we experience in gameplay must synch up with how cut-scenes/dialogue might treat the story.
Using health abstraction to justify characters survive being (visibly) mauled by a dragon, taking molten hot fire to the face, greatswords cutting into Mage robes is (in my opinion) very weak. If we're at that point, why not treat ability limitations in the same way? Even in DA:O, I never actually believed for a second that the only two spells at level 1 my character had access to were Arcane Bolt/one random. Story-wise, I'd bet there were numerous cantrip/weaker spells that the game didn't bother to provide me with because of budget/other gameplay reasons.
That's nonsense. As long as all of the game content is consistent, we don't need the segregation.
If Alistair can survive being mauled by a dragon, then any other similar character should also survive it. If mages can absorb damage from sword strikes while in their robes, then the same should be true for similarly durable characters in a similarly unarmoured state.
That said, how many hit points do the civilian classes get? In order to determine whether a scene in which townspeople die is consistent with the game's mechanics, we'd need to know the mechanics that govern the townspeople. And we don't.
My concern is more with characters regarding whose mechanics we do have knowledge being shown in cutscenes not abiding by those rules.
Certainly, assuming we want to lose the dramatic element of the story being told. I know Sylvius that you dislike cut-scenes, for example.
As someone who very much enjoys cut-scenes handled well, I'd rather keep fun gameplay mechanics and dramatic elements of cut-scenes, rather than watch Alistair awkwardly hack away at a Darkspawn for ten minutes simply because he has to abide by gameplay restrictions, which have a completely different design mentality behind them.
"Nullifying" is a bit melodramatic. Gain a 9th active ability and you'll still have access to it, whenever you want to trade off one of the other abilities for it.
What word would you prefer?
Abolishes, annuls, invalidates, negates, offsets, quashes, repeals, rescinds, restricts, torpedoes, undoes, or voids?
Strategy is long term planning. In game terms Strategy is which allies you choose to make, who you choose to attack, and what resources and armies you choose to build. Tactics is how you employ those resources to make those allies, and attack your enemies.
Part of building those resources is when you choose abilities for you characters. The strategy you use to choose those abilities determines what and who your characters can be effective against. For example if your strategy was to choose only fire spells for mages, then that strategy would fail if your forces encountered fire resistant creatures. A very effective strategy would be to choose many different kinds of damage and many different kinds of crowd control so your forces would always have winning tactics available to them.
The limitation of 8 usable abilities per encounter does not offer any additional strategy whatsoever. In fact it nullifies (Abolishes, annuls, invalidates, negates, offsets, quashes, repeals, rescinds, restricts, torpedoes, undoes, or voids) the strategic decisions that you made when choosing abilities for your characters.
Your assertion that you only nullify (Abolish, annul, invalidate, negate, offset, quash, repeal, rescind, restrict, torpedo, undo, or void) your strategy for the next combat and that you can choose to nullify (Abolish, annul, invalidate, negate, offset, quash, repeal, rescind, restrict, torpedo, undo, or void) your strategy in a different way for the combat after that does not negate that you are forced to nullify (Abolish, annul, invalidate, negate, offset, quash, repeal, rescind, restrict, torpedo, undo, or void) your strategic choices for every single combat (once you have more than 8 active abilities)
It's the equivalent of choosing to fight only left handed or to leave your sword holstered for the next combat and only use your shield or fight with your eyes closed. It's an arbitrary limitation whose sole purpose is to reduce your tactical choices for the upcoming combat and make you less effective.
The 8 abilities limit thing is sounding worse and worse by the second.
It's the equivalent of choosing to fight only left handed or to leave your sword holstered for the next combat and only use your shield or fight with your eyes closed. It's an arbitrary limitation whose sole purpose is to reduce your tactical choices for the upcoming combat and make you less effective.
I agree with the second of these bolded bits, but I disagree with the first. Of course giving you less abilities is intended to reduce your effectiveness. But having more options does not mean you have more tactical choices and reducing the options doesn't neccesarily imply a reduction in tactical choices. In fact the reverse can be true.
Thing is, the more options you haven the more likely you have a clear cut best option. And if you have such an option, there's no choice involved. You take that option. If you come up against an enemy vulnerable to lightning damage, and you have a ice spell, a fire spell and a lightning spell it's not "tactical" to use the lightning one on it, it's downright obvious. It's a no brainer. There's no real thought involved. On the other hand, if you only have a fire spell and an ice spell, both of which will do the same damage but have different secondary effects, now you actually have a choice to make. Which of these effects is more useful? Would I benefit from the ice spell, say, slowing the monster's attacks in addition to damage, or would I benefit more from the fire spell, say, reducing it's armour? That is far more of a tactical choice that "oh, it's weak to lightning I'll use lightning". By limiting the number of spells the player has - in this example from 3 to 2, you have added in a choice where, to all intents and purposes, none existed before.
The limitation of 8 usable abilities per encounter does not offer any additional strategy whatsoever. In fact it nullifies (Abolishes, annuls, invalidates, negates, offsets, quashes, repeals, rescinds, restricts, torpedoes, undoes, or voids) the strategic decisions that you made when choosing abilities for your characters.
The game always limits you in your choices. A class has say 50 possible skills based on your level you may only be able to pick 25 of them. Is that limiting your tactical choices? BG2 only allowed you to carry X spells into battle every day was that nullifying your choices? Cooldown puts a restriction on how often you can use a spell or power - often once per fight- which can really hamstring you. Now of course you rather blithely accept those limits because they are part of the "rules" but those are all artificial with no good reason in the world but clearly limit on your "tactical" choices.
Limits are also good. If you play war games that require actual use of tactics, you might have a force point allowance where you can buy artillery, tanks, airpower, infantry and so forth. You will often have buy limits that say "no armor" or "no airstrikes". Trying to stop an armored company without using tanks on your side is a lot more interesting way to fight that buying up all the tanks.
Next, part of your strategic plan will need to entail a build that fits what you can actually do in th "real world". In other words, does it make sense to buy another power that might force one off your UI OR do you eveolve an existing power so in that sense the tactical limits create strategic quandries.
Finally, it doesn't matter. Seriously, they could make the power limit 1 and it still wouldn't matter. These games are not that tactical. The fights you have are not meant to kill you or even really seriously threaten you.
Finally, it doesn't matter. Seriously, they could make the power limit 1 and it still wouldn't matter. These games are not that tactical. The fights you have are not meant to kill you or even really seriously threaten you.
well... for some people it does. and for the two last sentences: what if someone thinks they should?
number of spells (not skills, mind you, rogues, warriors, monks and other clowns were not chained to spellbooks) available in BG was restricted by level (equipment, debuffs) - it was rooted in the game mechanics, not the UI design. i'm just guessing here, but changing the core spell casting mechanics is a bit more difficult than adding, say... multiple skill tabs, perhaps?
you can limit founds to buy artilery and such, i get that. but abilities? the only reason for not being able to use them should be not learning. sometimes i do meet people who claim to have CS diploma, but they have no idea about de morgan's laws (and that's elementary school ffs... ), maybe they implemented that line of reasoning?
well... for some people it does. and for the two last sentences: what if someone thinks they should?
number of spells (not skills, mind you, rogues, warriors, monks and other clowns were not chained to spellbooks) available in BG was restricted by level (equipment, debuffs) - it was rooted in the game mechanics, not the UI design. i'm just guessing here, but changing the core spell casting mechanics is a bit more difficult than adding, say... multiple skill tabs, perhaps?
you can limit founds to buy artilery and such, i get that. but abilities? the only reason for not being able to use them should be not learning. sometimes i do meet people who claim to have CS diploma, but they have no idea about de morgan's laws (and that's elementary school ffs... ), maybe they implemented that line of reasoning?
I think fights should be dangerous....but they aren't. It is why I basically dislike most combat in any of the DA series - or BG series for that matter. I doubt any dev is sitting there looking at random room X in that slog through the Roads and thinking "Wow, they are in trouble here". They are more likely counting up XP you will have earned and thinking this is where they should level up because that is what the fights are.
My point about spell limits is that people accept those or skill limits as long as they, like you just said, think it is game design and not UI limitation - or else we'd have a lot of wailing about the BG2 system of spells. This clearly isn't a "UI limit" in the sense that they couldn't do more. The game design and game mechanics have changed by willful intent. Yes it is different than DAO or DA2 but so what. Those game mechanics are gonna change. The game mechanics changed in the ME series with every game. They have changed in the DA series. This is a change. If this same "limit" had been there in DAO, especially coming from BG2/NWN, no one would have blinked an eye at limits because they existed.
you can limit founds to buy artilery and such, i get that. but abilities? the only reason for not being able to use them should be not learning. sometimes i do meet people who claim to have CS diploma, but they have no idea about de morgan's laws (and that's elementary school ffs... ), maybe they implemented that line of reasoning?
I broke this out because all game limits have "sketchy" at best logic. I will just run a ton of "you accept it without asking too many questions" type of things. We will skip back ot BG2 and explain why you can only cast X spells per day and worse why you can only cast spell Y Z times per day. I know that there is some sorta explanation but it doesn't make sense. Worse, in DAO why can you only memorize one skill per level up. You obvious are capable of learning more than 1 spell so why limit that? Why do some swords require 2x as much strength as another sword to use? It obviously doesn't weight 2x as much does it? Same limits exist on armor. Can you explain why your mighty warrior is only half as strong as your end of game warrior? Leveling up in general, why does killing 50 genlocks make you suddenly able to persuade people better? Or craft potions? The point being, and I don't want to argue the logic people have developed around these, is that any limit can make no sense but some are such tropes we accept them without thinking.
I would much rather craft my own story within the setting (which includes the ongoing events you would call "the story") they provide.Certainly, assuming we want to lose the dramatic element of the story being told. I know Sylvius that you dislike cut-scenes, for example.
I don't understand how to play character under those rapidly changing conditions. It's more difficult to stay in character, and when I see any object or event I can't tell whethet it's the gameplay or cutscene version (which would otherwise inform my character's impression of it).As someone who very much enjoys cut-scenes handled well, I'd rather keep fun gameplay mechanics and dramatic elements of cut-scenes, rather than watch Alistair awkwardly hack away at a Darkspawn for ten minutes simply because he has to abide by gameplay restrictions, which have a completely different design mentality behind them.
Have you never read a tabletop game manual? Most of those are abstractions (this is inadequately explained in most CRPGs). Learning other skills from killing things, for example - the study that leads to that skill happens off-screen. Just like sleeping and eating do.I broke this out because all game limits have "sketchy" at best logic. I will just run a ton of "you accept it without asking too many questions" type of things. We will skip back ot BG2 and explain why you can only cast X spells per day and worse why you can only cast spell Y Z times per day. I know that there is some sorta explanation but it doesn't make sense. Worse, in DAO why can you only memorize one skill per level up. You obvious are capable of learning more than 1 spell so why limit that? Why do some swords require 2x as much strength as another sword to use? It obviously doesn't weight 2x as much does it? Same limits exist on armor. Can you explain why your mighty warrior is only half as strong as your end of game warrior? Leveling up in general, why does killing 50 genlocks make you suddenly able to persuade people better? Or craft potions? The point being, and I don't want to argue the logic people have developed around these, is that any limit can make no sense but some are such tropes we accept them without thinking.
I don't understand how to play character under those rapidly changing conditions. It's more difficult to stay in character, and when I see any object or event I can't tell whethet it's the gameplay or cutscene version (which would otherwise inform my character's impression of it).
Blah, blah, blah. Quit your moaning. You can't possibly be serious.
But the abstractions need to work as if they are literally true in order to avoid incentivising non-sensical behaviour.
I guess that's true to a degree, but the game needs to work as a game. There will always be a conflict between what makes a good game and what is realistic.
I think fights should be dangerous....but they aren't. It is why I basically dislike most combat in any of the DA series - or BG series for that matter. I doubt any dev is sitting there looking at random room X in that slog through the Roads and thinking "Wow, they are in trouble here". They are more likely counting up XP you will have earned and thinking this is where they should level up because that is what the fights are.
My point about spell limits is that people accept those or skill limits as long as they, like you just said, think it is game design and not UI limitation - or else we'd have a lot of wailing about the BG2 system of spells. This clearly isn't a "UI limit" in the sense that they couldn't do more. The game design and game mechanics have changed by willful intent. Yes it is different than DAO or DA2 but so what. Those game mechanics are gonna change. The game mechanics changed in the ME series with every game. They have changed in the DA series. This is a change. If this same "limit" had been there in DAO, especially coming from BG2/NWN, no one would have blinked an eye at limits because they existed.
i think devs stay away from forum, they have a game to debug/optimize, tbh. or are very protective of their child and don't want to bite people who speculate (panic!) that the idea they (devs/stakeholders/my mom/your neighbour's dog) come up with... well it might not be such a fantastic thing.
i don't think ancestry worship has anything to do with it (well i for one never liked BG, burn me, cuz the story was pompous and in general pretty meh, the mechanics was familiar yet still solid). weird design (and i use it subjectively) is a weird design - we've only seen one piece of the puzzle but it allows us (well: me) to speculate (panic) upon that scrap of info and extrapolate/play fortuneteller/predict whole combat mechanics. it's fun. others like extrapolate IB's manhood (qunarihood?).
I broke this out because all game limits have "sketchy" at best logic. I will just run a ton of "you accept it without asking too many questions" type of things. We will skip back ot BG2 and explain why you can only cast X spells per day and worse why you can only cast spell Y Z times per day. I know that there is some sorta explanation but it doesn't make sense. Worse, in DAO why can you only memorize one skill per level up. You obvious are capable of learning more than 1 spell so why limit that? Why do some swords require 2x as much strength as another sword to use? It obviously doesn't weight 2x as much does it? Same limits exist on armor. Can you explain why your mighty warrior is only half as strong as your end of game warrior? Leveling up in general, why does killing 50 genlocks make you suddenly able to persuade people better? Or craft potions? The point being, and I don't want to argue the logic people have developed around these, is that any limit can make no sense but some are such tropes we accept them without thinking.
it's funny, because most of the abstractions you described irk me as hell. and i actually prefer the level up model from Morrowind, seems more natural. so... what were we talking about again?
Have you never read a tabletop game manual? Most of those are abstractions (this is inadequately explained in most CRPGs). Learning other skills from killing things, for example - the study that leads to that skill happens off-screen. Just like sleeping and eating do.
But the abstractions need to work as if they are literally true in order to avoid incentivising non-sensical behaviour.
No, I don't read tabletop manuals and don't care to - they have zero bearing on the games i am playing. Your "explanation" is silly if that is the best tabletops can do. Sorry. If my killing of things allows me to study how, why? I can see the Skyrim use it and level it approach (sorta of since that only applies to a particular "school" not just a singular skill) but the DAO/BG way makes no sense. Plus, if that is the case that the study happens off screen why are we allowed to level up in combat/in the dungeon. Should all the immersion freaks want to have to travel to their master's school so they can learn how to do X and trade in their killing bandit chits for potion making skill...oh heck, I can't even pretend there is a way that makes sense.
The abstractions don't work and make sense. Trash mob killing is nonsensical - why do you want to kill everything in a dungeon it creates (well not really but if the game was real combat should be dangerous) risk for you at the cost of your overall really important goal. You do it for the XP of course so in that way XP as whole creates twisted incentives to do things you shouldn't want to do.
You accept all kinds of "logic" that limits you in games. You can't start picking and choosing the logic that works because none of it does.
A character just pulled a knife on you. Are you worried about that?Blah, blah, blah. Quit your moaning. You can't possibly be serious.
They shouldn't. The two games should be very similar.No, I don't read tabletop manuals and don't care to - they have zero bearing on the games i am playing.
It doesn't. It's a proxy for the passage of time and the application of knowledge.Your "explanation" is silly if that is the best tabletops can do. Sorry. If my killing of things allows me to study how, why?
Why wouldn't you be able to level up in a dungeon? There's plenty of downtime (off-screen) to study and practise.I can see the Skyrim use it and level it approach (sorta of since that only applies to a particular "school" not just a singular skill) but the DAO/BG way makes no sense. Plus, if that is the case that the study happens off screen why are we allowed to level up in combat/in the dungeon.
Unless the XP is real and the characters are aware of it.The abstractions don't work and make sense. Trash mob killing is nonsensical - why do you want to kill everything in a dungeon it creates (well not really but if the game was real combat should be dangerous) risk for you at the cost of your overall really important goal. You do it for the XP of course so in that way XP as whole creates twisted incentives to do things you shouldn't want to do.
What is your standard of evidence when playing the games? How do you make decisions on behalf of your characters?You accept all kinds of "logic" that limits you in games. You can't start picking and choosing the logic that works because none of it does.
"Nullifying" is a bit melodramatic. Gain a 9th active ability and you'll still have access to it, whenever you want to trade off one of the other abilities for it.
Retour en haut