820 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

(I'm not sure "peeking over the hill" is going to work; my bet is that those interface elements will only work in combat.)

That would be awful. The UI should work the same way all of the time.

[In Exile]

I can't accept that. As soon as I think that's true, I stop playing.

 

I appreciate that perspective. I was just answering the question. 

 

I think in this case your approach has to be to accept that there is a level of abstraction occurring - the PC or NPC is experiencing the combat according to his own subjective experience whereas you as the player experience according to the gameplay rules, with some your approach to the combat being mirrored in substance but not in technical execution. So if you intend to be cowardly, you can only do so to the extent the gameplay allows (so basically, disengage and run away) but the PC/NPC is doing something else (e.g. stumbling, screaming, etc.). 

 

I think that has to be the solution for you. 

[In Exile]

Since the previous games had more actions available on console and for PC they were entirely dependent on the resolution not sure how this is "consikufation" or what ever other word you want to make up.

A better resolution makes me a purer PC player, thus obviously entitling me to a purer gameplay experience based on my greater investment in PC gaming. 

[AlanC9]

Right. Just how tabletop games work.

Only to an extent. A functional tabletop group, in my experience, will prioritize the genre over the ruleset. (And maybe even the plot if they're feeling charitable. )

[In Exile]

Only to an extent. A functional tabletop group, in my experience, will prioritize the genre over the ruleset. (And maybe even the plot if they're feeling charitable. )

 

Now you're not even trying to be realistic.

[EnduinRaylene]

I think party roles will be a lot more important in DAI, especially now with the 8 ability limit. The game has over 200 abilities. A little over half appear to be active abilities, probably like 110-130 tops from what we've seen of the skill trees. In total there are 10 party members, who at any given time can have a total of 80 abilities mapped to their hotbars/face buttons. That's like 60-70% of all the abilities in the game ready at any given moment. 

 

So if you have Vivienne focused on Fire and Spirit schools, but you come up on an area controlled by the Venatori with the fire resistance or immunities, you don't need to muck about in her ability trees or tactics menu, all you need to do is swap out Viv for Dorian who could have an Ice and Entropy build. I think more emphasis will be put on creating a niche for certain characters, rather than recreating your character's loadout for a certain situation.

 

That's why we have things like the base camps that we can set up around the maps which have been shown to have the horn thingy that lets you select party members. Sure you may on occasion need or want to alter their specific loadout based on new abilities they've unlocked or your specific enemies and tactics at the time, but that will be secondary to creating a role for the companion to play and utilizing that primarily.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I appreciate that perspective. I was just answering the question.

I think in this case your approach has to be to accept that there is a level of abstraction occurring - the PC or NPC is experiencing the combat according to his own subjective experience whereas you as the player experience according to the gameplay rules, with some your approach to the combat being mirrored in substance but not in technical execution. So if you intend to be cowardly, you can only do so to the extent the gameplay allows (so basically, disengage and run away) but the PC/NPC is doing something else (e.g. stumbling, screaming, etc.).

I think that has to be the solution for you.

I've always seen combat as an abstraction (I've always seen dialogue as an abstraction, too). Butnif I take that too far (as I did in DA2, trying to exploit the unreliable narrator), the actual practise of combat becomes really dull. If I'm not making actual RP decisions in combat, I'd rather juat have an auto-resolve.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Only to an extent. A functional tabletop group, in my experience, will prioritize the genre over the ruleset. (And maybe even the plot if they're feeling charitable. )

I played with rules lawyers (I was perhaps the greatest among them). The rules mattered most of all. Little else did.

[AlanC9]

Now you're not even trying to be realistic.

Sometimes it's easier to just ride the railroad.

[AlanC9]

I played with rules lawyers (I was perhaps the greatest among them).

I am hardly surprised.

"Functional," in my post above, wasn't very apt. There are different ways for a gaming group to function.

[LexXxich]

1. Saying "you have/get to choose abilities before each battle" is actually false. You can't choose anything, because you already chose everything at level-up. Your mage Inq can't suddenly sprout Frost spells on the spot if s/he didn't get them at level-up. For two games in the series, it worked like D&D Sorcerers, and now BW tries to put Sorc peg into Wizard hole.

 

2. LAS designs only work if player gets to choose from a large set of abilities. Like a hundred or more, all unlocked and able to be put on hotbar at any time outside combat. Getting to "choose" 8 from maximum of 15 (which are, in turn, about only a half of class arsenal) is not that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I am hardly surprised.

"Functional," in my post above, wasn't very apt. There are different ways for a gaming group to function.

I was just about to revise my remarks to address the issue of there being a plot at all.  To me, the GM creates events to which the players can respond, but the plot would merely be a description of what the players do.  The GM isn't going to know that in advance.

 

There was never an authored narrative in tabletop gaming.  It was always emergent.  And that's what I'm trying to do in CRPGs, as well.

[schall_und_rauch]

Limiting the number of PC action abilties to 8 per character in a fight seems reasonable to me. Other games had a lot lower limit before (Guild Wars comes to mind) and did fine.

Then the game has more of a strategic aspect of picking out the 8 abilities that work best with your characters, rather than memorizing more and more abilities to be used "just in case", which will remain idle on your taskbar most of the time.

 

So, yeah, I can see that this is a conscious design choice, rather than a "gimping down to console level".

[Novos]

Well after a litlle bit of thought; i have come to the conclusion that the combat we are going to be experiencing will probably be smilar to a game i recently played which is Aarklash: Legacy from Cyanide.

 

Basicly you control 4 companions and all your characters have 4 different schools to choose from, meaning you have 4 abilities at your disposal at any given time. As the game progresses you gain skill points which you spend on those schools and aquire upgrades to your abilities. At the end; each of your ability gains additional bonuses; so that every one of them transformes into an ability executing the role of multiple ones. Think of an ability like; when you execute, you also get some form of healing, aoe, cc, buff, debuff etc.  element attached to it(multiple ones). You have the option to respec or change party composition(situational) any time out of combat if you wanted to for variety, efficiency etc. You also have the option to see your enemies level, defences, armor, resistances, immunities, abilities at their disposal, what those abilites do, on who or where they cast them...

 

I am not here to praise the game; but it had a fantastic, addicting and refreshing combat and it was prettty much the only strongest part of it. It required lots of movement, positioning, timing and planing... It is aslo very suitable for multipayler and co-op if you take out active pause.

 

I mean if you think about it; it feels like there are lots of smilarities between the two from the footage we have seen so far. This design choice might be a very smart move for a humble studio with limited resources and calibre and might work for them. But for an AAA title; i don't know. We just have to see...

 

If i am right and the combat is something like i have explained; 8 abilities with specializations and focus mechanic might be a very satisfying experience. On the other hand; even if you have the option to respec, change party composition, choose from 13-14 active abilities for any given character; it gets really old doing the same things over and over again. No matter how diverse combat might be out of those limited abilities... Therefore how this might blend into a game which has 150 hours of minimum is really questionable. Add multiplayer, dlcs and end game to it and you have a problem...

 

I guess we' ll just have to wait and see...

[schall_und_rauch]

To all of those who use the "there is no in-game lore reason why it has to be like this": We are talking about a game where any found armor fits to every character size, regardless of whether it is a qunari or a dwarf.

Nobody complains about that anymore, Well, except that players do complain if you can't give your favorite pants to somebody half your size, as was the case in DA II.

 

So, yes, I think that argument is just an excuse for "I don't like that gameplay mechanic", because everybody knows that gameplay mechanics will almost always override lore-specific explanations.

[bEVEsthda]

Considering the de-emphasis on potions and the redesigned tactics options, I'm getting the strong impression that there was a real objective to make the game playable without pausing at all, even in single player mode. Sure, the commands are still there, just like the tactical camera and the option to control party members, but it's also viable to play the game as a hyperkinetic TPS if that's how you want to do it. They're trying to expand the audience.

 

I think both this and your previous analysis is correct.

 

My only comment is that 'trying to expand the audience' with only this move is probably not a big thing. Rather, I'd think, they understand that they need to thoroughly embrace the consoles. This has become even more important now, with the new generation of capable consoles, and Microsoft's continued ineptness at PC and Windows strategies. The PC will die. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I mean embracing the consoles; that the PC will die is surely a bad thing). It's what Bethesda did, originally with Morrowind on the old XBox, and look what glorious PC-games have emerged from that. If you do it right. Most developers, of course, do it very wrong all the time. What side DA:I will come down on, we'll only see when we play the game. Though, I agree that what they've shown of the PC-UI is not encouraging.

 

"Expanding the market" by making a more consolish game is a fallacy. That market - for consolish games - is quite small, doesn't grow, is economically weak, and is already knee-deep in other consolish AAA games to play. The real ticket is to expand the market of games for consoles. And you do that by making PC'ish games also for consoles. You conquer the PC gamers who become an important and powerful marketing asset for you. And the console gamers can share in and have something different than their usual fodder. And something 'different' will get attention, and increase total volume of sales.

 

That is what Bethesda did, and what Infinity Ward did. And I believe that is also what DA:O did. ME:1 could have done that, but failed because it wasn't released on PC, originally.

Question is how EA/Bioware thinks about this? DA is in ambition and scope a PC'ish game, but is the hands'on gameplay? The console-stench is heavy on DA2, while it's very faint on, for instance, Skyrim. And revamping the UI completely, was oc also a PC option on Skyrim, thanks to the mod-friendliness of ES.

 

But I'm not going to judge DA:I before I've played it.

[bEVEsthda]

I was just about to revise my remarks to address the issue of there being a plot at all.  To me, the GM creates events to which the players can respond, but the plot would merely be a description of what the players do.  The GM isn't going to know that in advance.

 

There was never an authored narrative in tabletop gaming.  It was always emergent.  And that's what I'm trying to do in CRPGs, as well.

 

And that is, IMO, also the direction which cRPGs should strive into. That  is how they can get a clear separation and identity as a genre, not movie dialogues, classes or leveling (which, frankly, we already have sorts of in most games).

[Monoten]

I'm glad the tab button is back. I don't have to worry I might miss something during my travels .

[Adanu]

I didn't buy the PC version to get consolitus in my PC games Bioware. Fix this **** or you get no more buys from me and I cancel my pre-order for the first time since BG2.

[Rawgrim]

Lore and gameplay can't line up coherently, with very rare exceptions, I often mention Order of the Stick in this context. In that comic, we see what D&D should be like if characters are actually aware of the D&D ruleset. Goblins is another comic that also does a good job in illustrating what it would be like to have D&D rules and characters aware of those rules. 

 

Fallout 1-2, Might and Magic, Betraya at Krondor, Ultima, Planescape Torment, Drakensang. Tons of games have lore that lines up very well with the gameplay. This is because the devs stuck to the lore when designing the gameplay. Simple as that.

[Blooddrunk1004]

 

I'm just gono put this here and say that DA team could take notice from SWTOR team. Yes it's an MMO and before someone says there is too much on the screen. All these stuff you see on the screen can be customized: you can make it smaller, bigger, remove it and even move them to different part of the screen. Why can't we receive the customizable interface? That way everyone will be happy or will Bioware get angry if we compromise their "artistic vision"?

 

Sorry to say to this, but if you will put over 300 different abilites in the game i can't see how having only 8 windows makes this justifiable.

[Siven80]

Looks....fine i guess. Not bad, not great.

 

Really need context on how many abilities we might have at certain points in the game to see is being limited to only 8 slots will hinder us though.

[Fredvdp]

<snip>

 

I'm just gono put this here and say that DA team could take notice from SWTOR team. Yes it's an MMO and before someone says there is too much on the screen. All these stuff you see on the screen can be customized: you can make it smaller, bigger, remove it and even move them to different part of the screen. Why can't we receive the customizable interface? That way everyone will be happy or will Bioware get angry if we compromise their "artistic vision"?

 

Sorry to say to this, but if you will put over 300 different abilites in the game i can't see how having only 8 windows makes this justifiable.

It took a while before the custmizable UI was implemented in SWTOR, but I agree that it's a very good system. I use four hotkeybars for my main character and they all have 12 slots.

 

SWTOR has more abilities than DA, but I still enjoy a bit of custmizability in my traditional RPGs. Something like previous DA games where I could drag my hotkeybar to cover the entire width of my monitor, is already sufficient.

[rupok93]

I think both this and your previous analysis is correct.

 

My only comment is that 'trying to expand the audience' with only this move is probably not a big thing. Rather, I'd think, they understand that they need to thoroughly embrace the consoles. This has become even more important now, with the new generation of capable consoles, and Microsoft's continued ineptness at PC and Windows strategies. The PC will die. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I mean embracing the consoles; that the PC will die is surely a bad thing). It's what Bethesda did, originally with Morrowind on the old XBox, and look what glorious PC-games have emerged from that. If you do it right. Most developers, of course, do it very wrong all the time. What side DA:I will come down on, we'll only see when we play the game. Though, I agree that what they've shown of the PC-UI is not encouraging.

 

"Expanding the market" by making a more consolish game is a fallacy. That market - for consolish games - is quite small, doesn't grow, is economically weak, and is already knee-deep in other consolish AAA games to play. The real ticket is to expand the market of games for consoles. And you do that by making PC'ish games also for consoles. You conquer the PC gamers who become an important and powerful marketing asset for you. And the console gamers can share in and have something different than their usual fodder. And something 'different' will get attention, and increase total volume of sales.

 

That is what Bethesda did, and what Infinity Ward did. And I believe that is also what DA:O did. ME:1 could have done that, but failed because it wasn't released on PC, originally.

Question is how EA/Bioware thinks about this? DA is in ambition and scope a PC'ish game, but is the hands'on gameplay? The console-stench is heavy on DA2, while it's very faint on, for instance, Skyrim. And revamping the UI completely, was oc also a PC option on Skyrim, thanks to the mod-friendliness of ES.

 

But I'm not going to judge DA:I before I've played it.

HAHAHAHAHA, Are you seriously saying the pc is gonna die? Pc gaming market has already eclipsed consoles.

 

I would say its the other way around, more and more people are going to pc and its important to take advantage of the platform. 

[bEVEsthda]

HAHAHAHAHA, Are you seriously saying the pc is gonna die? Pc gaming market has already eclipsed consoles.

 

I would say its the other way around, more and more people are going to pc and its important to take advantage of the platform. 

 

Well, first of all, let's hope you're right. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

 

From a statistical point of view, PC gaming has always been growing, afaik. But that is not the full picture.

Basically, platform sales and standards are always driven by applications. By internal policy, MS do not allow PC gaming to compete with XBox. That is why overwhelmingly most major games today are console games, even when they're released for Windows. At the best, we can get glorified versions on the PC. This is happily the case for some major games, ES, CoD, and DA:O. But most of others are exactly the same as the console version, with a dreadful adaption of the UI.

 

If you look at the sales breakdown of some major PC-games, CoD, ES, DA, ME, they have all sold more on the consoles. So no, PC is not king. If you instead look at the games which have made the PC - statistically - such a big gaming platform, few of them require the PC as platform. They can run on tablets and even phones. And the majority of the PCs running them are wimpy laptops with integrated graphics.

So no, sales of powerful desktop PCs will face a difficult future. I certainly believe it is more than possible to drive sales of capable desktop PCs with power-hungry entertainment software. And other power-hungry applications for general domestic use. - But it's not being done! Instead, some mad MS executives came up with the failure-idea to launch the XBox One into some of that role instead. It's ten years too late and the wrong platform.

 

The cost of a PC today, is a function of a long period of volumes and competition. But what will drive PC sales in the future?

Business will go cloud and thin clients. In many cases those thin clients are going to be tablets. General personal use will also gradually move to pads and phones. There's a feedback loop in this market situation. Less demand for a powerful platform -> Lower volume and higher prices -> Less demand again - Even higher prices. Aside from this, Intel will also jump at the opportunity from AMD's decline, to stratify their tiers. There's going to be a much steeper and much higher variation in cost for power. The difference today, between something just a few percents away from the most powerful and the most mundane is quite small. Tomorrow, those few needing more power, for engineering, movie and image work, are going to have to pay much more for their "workstations". Today they can get by with a 'common' PC.

 

But there is, today, not enough sales of applications that require the power of a PC, to keep up the volumes of PC and Windows. It is in decline today, and as I said, there's a feedback mechanism in that decline.

The applications sell the platform. I don't see anything today that will keep selling the Windows-PC to the masses. I can certainly imagine things which could, but the post-Bill-Gates-MS don't allow that to happen. They're too busy trying to redo exactly what others already have done, and to try to matter on these other markets.