147 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I certainly can: Any game that allows me to play within the confines of skills I have available to me through training against an AI that is set to be competitive to my level. If I have 12 active skills trained, I should be able to use them. Disallowing that is artificial difficulty.

The obvious problem with this is that the way your PC acquires those skills and training is also fake. Or rather, it's a gameplay abstraction. I get that you like some kinds of abstraction and don't like others, but that's not the argument you're making.

[robertthebard]

The obvious problem with this is that the way your PC acquires those skills and training is also fake. Or rather, it's a gameplay abstraction. I get that you like some kinds of abstraction and don't like others, but that's not the argument you're making.

You're right, it's not. The argument I'm making is that, within the confines of the game, I have x number of skills. The game, however, is telling me that, if they're not on the hotbar when I enter combat, I don't know those skills. This is artificial difficulty, since, within the confines of the game, I have earned the right to use specific skills/talents, but the game is telling me I haven't, because "You don't have it on the bar, you don't know it, I don't care what your character screens tell you". Within the confines of this virtual reality, I should be able to use anything that's useable that I have points in. The game has decided that this isn't the case, if they aren't slotted, and, to add artificial difficulty, my slots are limited, to what degree this is an issue we don't know, but it is an issue, and that I can't change what's on the slots during combat, thus creating another layer of "difficulty" by removing trained abilities from my options, in combat. That flies in the face of the purpose of leveling up in the first place, to become stronger, and more adaptable, unless I'm willing to metagame encounters to determine if what I'm currently running is going to be fine, or if it needs to be changed, or, alternatively, causing me to build simplistic characters, so that I always have one or two abilities that will work. Not just on the main character either, but across the board for everyone that is, has been or will be in my party. I certainly hope that companions aren't spec'd in a specific direction, that could make them useless in certain areas, although easy to overcome for metagame reasons, it would suck for RP reasons, one of the reasons people play this genre of game.

[fchopin]

Maybe because they wanted to have a greater focus on planning out strategy?

How are you going to plan something if you have no idea what kind of fight will materialise?
Similar to TW2, we had to meditate to take potions so if don’t know what kind of fight we will get then we have no idea which potions to take so I played the game without potions.

[CronoDragoon]

How are you going to plan something if you have no idea what kind of fight will materialise?

 

You can't. Thankfully there's been no indication that BioWare expects us to fly into fights blind, and several pieces of evidence to the contrary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're right, it's not. The argument I'm making is that, within the confines of the game, I have x number of skills. The game, however, is telling me that, if they're not on the hotbar when I enter combat, I don't know those skills.

In essence, the game's mechanics are contradicting themselves.

The only solution I can see is for us to explain the restriction ourselves.

And I think I'm getting there (but I still think the game's lore should do this for us). For the melee abilties, it requires you adjust the straps on your armour to suit the abilities you want to use (for example). For the magic, I handled Vancian casting well enough (indeed, I liked it) that I doubt I'll have trouble explaining it to my satisfaction.

[Il Divo]

Isn't Vancian already pre-explained for you? The idea is that actually memorizing spells requires a great deal of time/energy, to the point where most of the "casting" is performed during rest, if I remember right. Your character's restrictions in combat are the result an inability to prepare so many different incantations.  

[CronoDragoon]

Isn't Vancian already pre-explained for you? The idea is that actually memorizing spells requires a great deal of time/energy, to the point where most of the "casting" is performed during rest, if I remember right. Your character's restrictions in combat are the result an inability to prepare so many different incantations.  

 

I will actually concede this point to Rawgrim: it's already been established in the DAverse that Vancian casting does not apply (through the way magic worked in DA1 and 2) and so suddenly introducing it in Inquisition wouldn't work.

 

That's only if you actually care about lore consistency for gameplay mechanics, of course, which I don't. Still, it's a solid point if you are debating the lore consistency angle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Isn't Vancian already pre-explained for you? The idea is that actually memorizing spells requires a great deal of time/energy, to the point where most of the "casting" is performed during rest, if I remember right. Your character's restrictions in combat are the result an inability to prepare so many different incantations.

That's how I did it, yes. The actual combat casting of the spell was just a trigger to release the magical energy the memorization process had inscribed on your brain. But because of the magical qualities of the brain, it is not consumed in the casting the way a scroll is when its energy is released.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I will actually concede this point to Rawgrim: it's already been established in the DAverse that Vancian casting does not apply (through the way magic worked in DA1 and 2) and so suddenly introducing it in Inquisition wouldn't work.

That's only if you actually care about lore consistency for gameplay mechanics, of course, which I don't. Still, it's a solid point if you are debating the lore consistency angle.

DA2 already eliminated any possible claim of consistency across the IP by changing how AoE magic works (blocked by terrain - it wasn't in DAO), and changing the basic function of attributes.

We should still be concerned with the internal consistency of each game, but across the games that fight is already lost.

[AlanC9]

In essence, the game's mechanics are contradicting themselves.
The only solution I can see is for us to explain the restriction ourselves.
And I think I'm getting there (but I still think the game's lore should do this for us). For the melee abilties, it requires you adjust the straps on your armour to suit the abilities you want to use (for example). For the magic, I handled Vancian casting well enough (indeed, I liked it) that I doubt I'll have trouble explaining it to my satisfaction.

Well, another solution would be to simply stop trying and accept that it's yet another instance of gameplay/lore segregation. What's one more case of that after so many?

(Obviously, you should stick with headcanoning stuff if that makes the game more fun, though.)

[robertthebard]

I will actually concede this point to Rawgrim: it's already been established in the DAverse that Vancian casting does not apply (through the way magic worked in DA1 and 2) and so suddenly introducing it in Inquisition wouldn't work.
 
That's only if you actually care about lore consistency for gameplay mechanics, of course, which I don't. Still, it's a solid point if you are debating the lore consistency angle.

I'm tending more towards noticing a trend:

In Origins, warriors could train with bows and xbows, in DA 2 they couldn't. Was this a good change, or well received? Nope.

In Origins, rogues could use all melee weapons/armors, if they set their stats up for them, granted some not well, but there it is, and in DA 2, they were limited.

In Origins, mages could equip any armor or weapons, if they built for them. In DA 2, they couldn't, barring Hawke, I suppose.

All of these design choices limited what players could do, and now, they're limiting that even farther. With every installment, this game is losing choice, how long until there are no choices left to make, and we're all Ezio in Thedas?

With the addendum that we did indeed at least gain playable races back for this one, but really, I'm not sure how "balancing" that is compared to what we seem to be giving up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, another solution would be to simply stop trying and accept that it's yet another instance of gameplay/lore segregation. What's one more case of that after so many?

I'm never going to accept gameplay/lore segregation as an explanation for anything.

One more case would be the very first case.

[CronoDragoon]

All of these design choices limited what players could do, and now, they're limiting that even farther. With every installment, this game is losing choice, how long until there are no choices left to make, and we're all Ezio in Thedas?

 

That's reductionist. We're getting back tactical camera and playable races, and the story looks to be far more customizable than Origins and DA2 ever were. Compared to that, an 8 ability limit is laughably minor to me.

[AlanC9]

The argument I'm making is that, within the confines of the game, I have x number of skills. The game, however, is telling me that, if they're not on the hotbar when I enter combat, I don't know those skills. This is artificial difficulty, since, within the confines of the game, I have earned the right to use specific skills/talents, but the game is telling me I haven't, because "You don't have it on the bar, you don't know it, I don't care what your character screens tell you".

"Know" isn't really the right word there, unless you're describing your feelings or this is just rhetoric. A Champions character isn't allowed to wear a defeated enemy's magic ring, but that isn't because he doesn't know how to wear rings.

Within the confines of this virtual reality, I should be able to use anything that's useable that I have points in.

Is this a straight-up premise? If not, could you work out the derivation?

That flies in the face of the purpose of leveling up in the first place, to become stronger, and more adaptable, unless I'm willing to metagame encounters to determine if what I'm currently running is going to be fine, or if it needs to be changed, or, alternatively, causing me to build simplistic characters, so that I always have one or two abilities that will work. Not just on the main character either, but across the board for everyone that is, has been or will be in my party. I certainly hope that companions aren't spec'd in a specific direction, that could make them useless in certain areas, although easy to overcome for metagame reasons, it would suck for RP reasons, one of the reasons people play this genre of game.

It's only metagaming if you reload once you see what happens. Otherwise it's just normal play.

[AlanC9]

I'm never going to accept gameplay/lore segregation as an explanation for anything.

I am continually in awe of your ability to do that. How'd you get past lightsabers knocking people out rather than cutting them to pieces in KotOR?

[robertthebard]

That's reductionist. We're getting back tactical camera and playable races, and the story looks to be far more customizable than Origins and DA2 ever were. Compared to that, an 8 ability limit is laughably minor to me.

That's cool, for you. It's not, however, cool for me. Here's the thing, I don't have to convince you, and won't try, that my way is the only accurate perspective, it's one of many. Obviously, some like it, some don't some for varying reasons, and some say "it's because of consoles" and some don't. The reasons are likely as varied as the opinions on it, and that's fine. However, I don't see taking things away as a good design choice. I don't see giving us playable races and tactical camera a good trade off for limiting those races as well as the original default choice in what they could have eventually become. You've stated that you do, I just hope that, come end game, you're not wishing for something different if a generically built party isn't good enough to beat the end fight on Nightmare. Yes, you can reload, if needed, and reset and retry, but really, if the only reason you couldn't win was lack of access to certain skills in the end fight, are you still going to be thinking it was a great trade off?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I am continually in awe of your ability to do that. How'd you get past lightsabers knocking people out rather than cutting them to pieces in KotOR?

Lightsabers in KotOR clearly don't work the way lightsabers in Star Wars do.

Alternatively, combat is an abstraction. This is one I use a lot - what we see on screen isn't a literal representation of in-setting events. Unfortunately, this has the side effect of rendering cinematics completely pointless.

[CronoDragoon]

You've stated that you do, I just hope that, come end game, you're not wishing for something different if a generically built party isn't good enough to beat the end fight on Nightmare. Yes, you can reload, if needed, and reset and retry, but really, if the only reason you couldn't win was lack of access to certain skills in the end fight, are you still going to be thinking it was a great trade off?

 

It might indeed suck if I decide to build a generic party in Nightmare for a game that wants players to not to that. The answer that I won't do that.

[robertthebard]

"Know" isn't really the right word there, unless you're describing your feelings or this is just rhetoric. A Champions character isn't allowed to wear a defeated enemy's magic ring, but that isn't because he doesn't know how to wear rings.

Did they apply their training to learning to equip the ring? You see, this has very little to do with what the skill trees bring to the table. In my karate class, the first two White Belt techniques had a total of 8 moves. By the game's definition, that would make a novice student a black belt, since they've learned all the different moves they can use in a match? Did you see the Karate Kid movies? Assuming yes: I fought in those kinds of tournaments. If I had gone in limiting myself to 8 moves, I'd never win, no matter how they were applied, because my opponent isn't limited. Assuming equal skill levels, the artificial limitation of 8 possible skills means that he has a larger pool of abilities and counters to choose from, and so, I lose.

To apply this to the game, the skill trees are technique lists. Limiting what a character can use off the list, once they've learned the technique means that you have to imply that, during combat, they "forget" things they know. This is artificial difficulty, since it's artificially limiting what they can use in a combat situation because "UI Limitation". Is it because people can't access more skills than that? Certainly not on the PC, since Ctrl, Shift and Alt can all be used to access different bars, and this tactic was applied, by BioWare, in NWN. My Xbox controller only has one modifier key, by default, although I suppose I could make more, but the removal of the Radial Menu for skill use effectively limited what consoles can do. So, even though I'd like to believe otherwise, I have to start looking at "balancing between platforms" as a reason for this, which has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay, other than some platforms have more access than others.

Is this a straight-up premise? If not, could you work out the derivation?

I think the analogy above sort of touches on this: I have trained sufficiently in whatever school, be it warrior, rogue or mage, to learn specific techniques/spells/talents. I come over the hill and run into a mass of enemies, the talents/spells/skills I have on my hotbar are "largely" ineffective, but I can't use skill #9, since, seeing as I'm in combat already, and didn't metagame that I was going to be in combat, I don't have that skill that might turn the tide faster equipped. Is it possible that I will still win? Sure. Is it possible that some of my companions will be ineffective? It could be, however unlikely it may seem, it's not impossible, just improbable. However, if they have all learned a skill/spell/talent that could turn the tide, but are locked out due to UI limitations, this is artificial difficulty, since I have the abilities to make it easier, but the game has locked me out of them because they're not on the hot bar.

It's only metagaming if you reload once you see what happens. Otherwise it's just normal play.

So having the Prima Strategy Guide sitting on the desk mapping out what to do for each and every encounter/puzzle/maze isn't metagaming?

[robertthebard]

It might indeed suck if I decide to build a generic party in Nightmare for a game that wants players to not to that. The answer that I won't do that.

Then you may find yourself failing a lot sooner than that, depending on what builds you decide to use. The build used in the gameplay trailer vs the High Dragon was a generic mage build, not specialized, take a look at the available skills, they're all over the place. They had the benefit of "Godmode", so they couldn't die. We, on the other hand, won't have that benefit.

[CronoDragoon]

So having the Prima Strategy Guide sitting on the desk mapping out what to do for each and every encounter/puzzle/maze isn't metagaming?

 

Again you are assuming the game will not provide any hints or information in advance, which is a bit dishonest given what we've seen so far.

 

I also think that even if scouts and perks/codexes don't give you that info, they will escalate encounters in the game since they don't need to scale. So for example, the first time you fight a few demons it's not terribly hard to kill them. By then you know one or two of it's weaknesses. Then the game says: all right, so you know how to kill them. We're going to make them way stronger, throw in some more, add some terrain wrinkles, and see if you can actually do it. Now you have the foreknowledge you need for the encounter, and can focus instead on execution after equipping the proper skills.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

That sounds a little too restrictive to me, and also a much different type of restriction. It sounds like SS2 has builds that are either fantastic the whole game or awful the whole game, whereas Inquisition is more about building each character several different ways and switching dependent on the situation.

 

Nah, it's difficult throughout.  No switching, and no rebuilding - I'm conveying it badly because I was tired, and it's a little hard to explain.  System Shock has no builds that are fantastic - it's punishing all the time, and virtually nothing works on the suicide bots - but it's certainly all about careful resource management and desperately allocating what few things you have (mostly because it's really a horror game and it's improving the atmosphere).  Certainly I think that this ability method in Inquisition will similarly increase the feeling of limits - in the good sense, in the sense of 'I can't punch out that dragon, I have limits' which wasn't entirely present in Origins where I was pretty confident I could take most bad guys when I walked into a room.  One of the few things I liked about DA2's combat was how fragile the party felt - there was more of a sense of risk (though it was mostly due to bullshit waves, so I wasn't that happy).  

 

Doesn't that mean that metagaming is the only way to complete the game?  If we're going by what the PC knows and expects, then they'd almost always select the upgrades that give them an edge over biological enemies, as they are more common... if they rarely encounter cyber enemies, why would they ever take upgrades that are effective against them in the first place?  I don't think I'd be too happy if i played through an entire game only to find out in the final hours that a build that has worked in every other situation is now ineffective to the point that I can't win at all (or perhaps with Herculean effort... I don't know).  Then again, I've never played this game so maybe there is some hint that cyber enemies will become more common in the future... 

 

I guess I'll just take your word that it was enjoyable.  If this only applies to the higher difficulties, it's probably not as bad as it sounds... I mean, you are signing up for a challenge when you increase the difficulty, after all.

 

Nope.  There are lots of cybers as well - it's just that they're generally tough enough that the best strategy is not to waste your ammo and to beat them to death with a wrench while backpedalling furiously.  But that's a style thing, just like how I always kill Atlas in Bioshock with a wrench because **** him.  It's more that unless you're paying attention, or are anticipating the kind of betrayal that SHODAN pulls on you, you will not be able to complete the game without insane frustration.  I know a lot of people give System Shock 2 flak for this, for not allowing any possible build, but I think that it actually takes insane balls to say 'Sure, you can learn macrame if you want - it's just it won't do **** for you' because I LIKE punishing, unforgiving narratives that grind the character into the sheer grimness of life.  

 

Also, SS2 is essentially a sadomasochistic game, with SHODAN as your dominatrix.  Hell, the famous line from SS1 shows this.  It's not for everyone - hell I mostly enjoy it because of its dizzying depth and incredible story, rather than because the gameplay was perfect - but yes, it is a little more forgiving on the lower difficulties.  

[robertthebard]

Again you are assuming the game will not provide any hints or information in advance, which is a bit dishonest given what we've seen so far.
 
I also think that even if scouts and perks/codexes don't give you that info, they will escalate encounters in the game since they don't need to scale. So for example, the first time you fight a few demons it's not terribly hard to kill them. By then you know one or two of it's weaknesses. Then the game says: all right, so you know how to kill them. We're going to make them way stronger, throw in some more, add some terrain wrinkles, and see if you can actually do it. Now you have the foreknowledge you need for the encounter, and can focus instead on execution after equipping the proper skills.

I didn't what? Maybe you should go back and read the post that the poster I quoted posted before trying to jump to some wild conclusion about what I do or don't assume. If you do, you'll see that I in fact don't assume it doesn't, I straight out state that it does provide an in game version of the strategy guide on the tooltip. Immunity, vulnerability, level and HP, all for the low price of mousing over the mob. You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions based on what you "think", while telling people like me not to do that.

[schall_und_rauch]

I'm never going to accept gameplay/lore segregation as an explanation for anything.

One more case would be the very first case.

So are you unhappy that you can swap out weapons and armor between characters of very different shapes and sizes, and they suddenly fit every one of them without any explanation of the lore?

[Sylvius the Mad]

So are you unhappy that you can swap out weapons and armor between characters of very different shapes and sizes, and they suddenly fit every one of them without any explanation of the lore?

The weapons don't bother me; perhaps I don't know enough about weapons.

The armour could be getting resized off-screen. Most armour needs to be adjusted to fit each new person - adjusting straps and the like wouldn't be super fun.

But I wouldn't object to adding that as a mechanic. Much like we used to have to take magic items to be identified (I miss that), we could take gear to be adjusted to fit.