371 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

And since I'm often fighting the intended design, I'd like some means to iignore that disagreement.

No objections from me.

I believe this came up earlier, but would yanking the PC voice sound files work for you? Then you turn subtitles off, and all you get is the NPC voices and the PC paraphrases. The downside would be cutscenes where the PC has lines, since you wouldn't get those unless you put the subtitles on.

Whether this would be easy to implement depends on how the sound files are organized.

[Wafodie.]

God, I hope not. That game was too challenging for me and I didn't even know what to do. Worst game design ever.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No objections from me.

I believe this came up earlier, but would yanking the PC voice sound files work for you? Then you turn subtitles off, and all you get is the NPC voices and the PC paraphrases. The downside would be cutscenes where the PC has lines, since you wouldn't get those unless you put the subtitles on.

Whether this would be easy to implement depends on how the sound files are organized.

I actually asked for this during DA2's development. Based on how the sound files were organised in ME, you couldn't simply remove them, so I asked for DA2 to be built such that you could.

However, just removing them would cause subsequent lines to be out of sync with the animation, so you'd actually have to replace the voice files with new files of identical length that contained nothing but dead air. And I'm sure enterprising modders could manage that.

[Rawgrim]

God, I hope not. That game was too challenging for me and I didn't even know what to do. Worst game design ever.

 

Its all in the manual.

[pdusen]

It's easy to break the Total War games by editing the .ini. The point of hiding the options there is so that it's not the designer's fault when a user breaks the game. And that eliminates the need to check all the possible modifications against the core game (or each other).

Powerful tools tend not to be user friendly. I would like powerful tools more than I would like user-friendliness.

 

Fair enough, but they would still need to do at least enough testing to make sure the option does what it's supposed to do and doesn't break itself, which still makes it a non-trivial addition.

[Jester]

I didn't know where else I might put it, and creating a new thread just seemed out of place.

 

There is one thing present in some old RPGs that I'd gladly see in DA series. It actully is present in Fallout series and in Planescape: Torment, and not so much in Baldur's Gate.

Less focus on combat.

 

Now, what do I mean by that? Dragon Age (and not only, this problem appears in most recently made RPGs) is overfocused on combat, as a means to complete quests. 

Take questlines in Origins. Ostegar - kill dozens of Darkspawn in the forest, then kill a whole lot more in the Tower of Ishal. Lothering - bunch of side quests, based on killing bandits, wolves, bears and other. Tower of Magi - 4 floors of murdering abominations and 2 hours of murdering stuff in the Fade. Deep Roads... I think you get my point. By the end of the game, the body count is in tens of thousands. Combat is practically only gameplay mechanic and the only way to settle problems. Take Brecillian Forest. You may side with the elves and fight the werewolves. You may side with warewolves and try to persuade Zathrian to undo the curse - which always ends in a fight with him. You may finally side with the werewolves and kill the elves. There is no option, in any questline to resolve the issue without fighting. Even the Landsmeet end in the duel with Loghain, even if you did everything right. 

 

Now, I was just playing Fallout 2. For about two-three hours. I got into fight ONCE, and it was a random encounter on the road. In the meantime i finished about 3 or 4 quests and I leveled twice. 

How you might ask? Because apart from combat, quests involve speaking with people, finding items, figuring out the ways that something might work, getting through dialogues, exploring and experimenting. This makes for much more varied and interesting gameplay, as you never know what the given questline might involve. And more than that - what it will involve is entirely up to you! I'll give you an example:

 

You need access to main computer inside the city. To do so, you must become Citizen. The leader gives you the task, of dealing with the certain problem - a nearby village has a nuclear plant, that is leaking radioactive waste into the ground, poisoning the city. As it turns out, you can:

1. Kill all inhabitants of the village and shut down their power plant.

2. Tell the villagers that you want to help, get inside, activate meltdown of the core reactor and escape.

3. Help them fix the generator - a longer and more complicated route - but everyone profits from that.

 

In route 3 you don't have to fire your gun even once.

But hey - you don't mind fighting, have a strong, well equipped character and don't have time and patience for all that crap? Shoot the guards inside the city and get into the main computer. Or sneak into the chamber with the computer.

Or talk with another person in the City and find an entirely different route to become the Citizen. The choice is yours and it affects the gameplay in the meaningful way. 

 

Why wasn't it possible in DA2 to figure out earlier, that Isabela stole the Qunari artifact, retrieve it before the Qunari attacked and end the situation peacefully?

Why you had to fight the anti-Meredith consirators on every step? Why no allow player to contact them, support the Templar-Mage alliance and stop Meredith before Anders blew up the Chantry?

Why not allow you to tell Elthina, that Anders had suspicious business to do inside the Chantry?

Why can't you persuade Zathrian without fighting him?

 

Why does every choice and quest - even side quest - in DA series have to end in a battle? Persuading your way through, ending conflicts peacefully, finding ways to achieve your goals without murdering half of the city's population - allowing player to do that...now that's creative game design. More alternative means to resolve problems and less meaningless fighting through tedious waves of enemies.

[AlanC9]

I actually asked for this during DA2's development. Based on how the sound files were organised in ME, you couldn't simply remove them, so I asked for DA2 to be built such that you could.

However, just removing them would cause subsequent lines to be out of sync with the animation, so you'd actually have to replace the voice files with new files of identical length that contained nothing but dead air. And I'm sure enterprising modders could manage that.

As I understand it, you could just replace the files in the .pcc as long as the replacement is the same size or smaller, which would work for you. Gibbed's sound extractor already can give you all the filenames, but obviously doing this without some sort of batch process would be a gigantic PITA. But this is all academic since it doesn't have much to do with the new engine.

I doubt synchronization would actually be a problem. The next scripting event would trigger both the animation and the audio for the next line, wouldn't it? That's how Bio's previous games do things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fair enough, but they would still need to do at least enough testing to make sure the option does what it's supposed to do and doesn't break itself, which still makes it a non-trivial addition.

It offers a non-trivial benefit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As I understand it, you could just replace the files in the .pcc as long as the replacement is the same size or smaller, which would work for you. Gibbed's sound extractor already can give you all the filenames, but obviously doing this without some sort of batch process would be a gigantic PITA. But this is all academic since it doesn't have much to do with the new engine.

If you have the filenames and paths, that should be easy.

I wish I'd known this before.

[AlanC9]

The problem is that they're not independent files anymore; they come in big bundles with a PCC extension. I think it's similar to NWN .erf files.

[KaiserShep]

I didn't know where else I might put it, and creating a new thread just seemed out of place.

 

There is one thing present in some old RPGs that I'd gladly see in DA series. It actully is present in Fallout series and in Planescape: Torment, and not so much in Baldur's Gate.

Less focus on combat.

 

Now, what do I mean by that? Dragon Age (and not only, this problem appears in most recently made RPGs) is overfocused on combat, as a means to complete quests. 

Take questlines in Origins. Ostegar - kill dozens of Darkspawn in the forest, then kill a whole lot more in the Tower of Ishal. Lothering - bunch of side quests, based on killing bandits, wolves, bears and other. Tower of Magi - 4 floors of murdering abominations and 2 hours of murdering stuff in the Fade. Deep Roads... I think you get my point. By the end of the game, the body count is in tens of thousands. Combat is practically only gameplay mechanic and the only way to settle problems. Take Brecillian Forest. You may side with the elves and fight the werewolves. You may side with warewolves and try to persuade Zathrian to undo the curse - which always ends in a fight with him. You may finally side with the werewolves and kill the elves. There is no option, in any questline to resolve the issue without fighting. Even the Landsmeet end in the duel with Loghain, even if you did everything right. 

 

Now, I was just playing Fallout 2. For about two-three hours. I got into fight ONCE, and it was a random encounter on the road. In the meantime i finished about 3 or 4 quests and I leveled twice. 

How you might ask? Because apart from combat, quests involve speaking with people, finding items, figuring out the ways that something might work, getting through dialogues, exploring and experimenting. This makes for much more varied and interesting gameplay, as you never know what the given questline might involve. And more than that - what it will involve is entirely up to you! I'll give you an example:

 

You need access to main computer inside the city. To do so, you must become Citizen. The leader gives you the task, of dealing with the certain problem - a nearby village has a nuclear plant, that is leaking radioactive waste into the ground, poisoning the city. As it turns out, you can:

1. Kill all inhabitants of the village and shut down their power plant.

2. Tell the villagers that you want to help, get inside, activate meltdown of the core reactor and escape.

3. Help them fix the generator - a longer and more complicated route - but everyone profits from that.

 

In route 3 you don't have to fire your gun even once.

But hey - you don't mind fighting, have a strong, well equipped character and don't have time and patience for all that crap? Shoot the guards inside the city and get into the main computer. Or sneak into the chamber with the computer.

Or talk with another person in the City and find an entirely different route to become the Citizen. The choice is yours and it affects the gameplay in the meaningful way. 

 

Why wasn't it possible in DA2 to figure out earlier, that Isabela stole the Qunari artifact, retrieve it before the Qunari attacked and end the situation peacefully?

Why you had to fight the anti-Meredith consirators on every step? Why no allow player to contact them, support the Templar-Mage alliance and stop Meredith before Anders blew up the Chantry?

Why not allow you to tell Elthina, that Anders had suspicious business to do inside the Chantry?

Why can't you persuade Zathrian without fighting him?

 

Why does every choice and quest - even side quest - in DA series have to end in a battle? Persuading your way through, ending conflicts peacefully, finding ways to achieve your goals without murdering half of the city's population - allowing player to do that...now that's creative game design. More alternative means to resolve problems and less meaningless fighting through tedious waves of enemies.

 

I agree with this. I like being able to talk my way out of issues, or use non-lethal skills to either exacerbate a problem or conflict, or simply resolve it. I'm currently playing Fallout 3, and I like how you can basically choose to make Megaton hostile or choose to either fix the giant bomb, or set it to detonate.

 

I think that having less focus on combat can also have an effect on how the compulsory combat sequences feel. When you can avoid having an encounter turn violent at most instances, the parts that give you no choice in the matter feel like less of a grind.

[Vilegrim]

I agree with this. I like being able to talk my way out of issues, or use non-lethal skills to either exacerbate a problem or conflict, or simply resolve it. I'm currently playing Fallout 3, and I like how you can basically choose to make Megaton hostile or choose to either fix the giant bomb, or set it to detonate.

 

I think that having less focus on combat can also have an effect on how the compulsory combat sequences feel. When you can avoid having an encounter turn violent at most instances, the parts that give you no choice in the matter feel like less of a grind.

 

 

 

It's part of what made PS:T so good, their aren't that many mandatory fights.

[Eternal Phoenix]

God, I hope not. That game was too challenging for me and I didn't even know what to do. Worst game design ever.

 

Okay Wafodie, now I'm certain that you're just trolling.

 

Mind you, maybe you're serious. This is the generation, after all, of people who prefer games which hold their hands. That's why Dark Souls and Divinity: Original Sin have been refreshing for me as those are two games with complete freedom, which don't hold the player's hand and aren't afraid to punish the player.

[LinksOcarina]

Okay Wafodie, now I'm certain that you're just trolling.

 

Mind you, maybe you're serious. This is the generation, after all, of people who prefer games which hold their hands. That's why Dark Souls and Divinity: Original Sin have been refreshing for me as those are two games with complete freedom, which don't hold the player's hand and aren't afraid to punish the player.

 

Refreshing, yet poorly designed, at least in the case of Dark Souls.

 

It is less about holding someones hand, and more about thoughtful design that isn't **** you hard, which Dark Souls honestly was. You were also limited in many ways because of that design; specific builds for example are always inherently better so you can survive, which is something I hate in RPGs, its optimization to the extreme. That is not the mark of a good game. 

 

I don't know, Dark Souls I was not impressed with. Original Sin I didn't play yet, but I hear good things.

[nihiliste]

And since I'm often fighting the intended design, I'd like some means to iignore that disagreement.

 

Sylvius, I'm impressed that you're still here advocating for a classic role playing experience in these games but I can't help but feel like it's futile.  Bioware is no longer interested in making RPGs with gamers like us in mind, as it seems we're no longer a significant part of their target audience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bioware is no longer interested in making RPGs with gamers like us in mind, as it seems we're no longer a significant part of their target audience.

It's becoming apparent that I don't care whether I represent a significant part of their audience. I still do what I can to move the margins of public opinion, and increase the cost of features I dislike by shining a light on their negative aspects.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You should see the number of people on the steam forums complaining about their builds in divinity original sin.

If a game is well documented, there's no excuse for a poor build.

I don't think it's possible for a well documented hame to have trap abilities.

[Jester]

Mind you, maybe you're serious. This is the generation, after all, of people who prefer games which hold their hands. That's why Dark Souls and Divinity: Original Sin have been refreshing for me as those are two games with complete freedom, which don't hold the player's hand and aren't afraid to punish the player.

Hmm, I should probably try those. I heard a lot of good things about Dark Souls. Unfortunately I don't own a controller and many people claim that this game is unplayable with K&M due to horrible PC port. Some say that it's fine though. 

[Gtdef]

Refreshing, yet poorly designed, at least in the case of Dark Souls.

 

It is less about holding someones hand, and more about thoughtful design that isn't **** you hard, which Dark Souls honestly was. You were also limited in many ways because of that design; specific builds for example are always inherently better so you can survive, which is something I hate in RPGs, its optimization to the extreme. That is not the mark of a good game. 

 

I don't know, Dark Souls I was not impressed with. Original Sin I didn't play yet, but I hear good things.

 

I can think of a lot of criticisms about Dark Souls, but this is just wrong. The game is beatable by just getting the minimum requirements for weapon usage. This is a fact, I've personally done it and if you are skeptical just do a youtube search for speedruns. People beat the game naked with the most minimalistic builds possible, reaching weapon requirements and dumbing everything else into health and stamina (or not leveling at all past a point just to save some time).

 

And there are other considerations to be made if you want to compare it. For example Dark Souls doesn't have difficulty settings. Any dnd influenced rpg played on higher difficulties requires way more optimization than DS.

 

The only part of the game that quality builds matter is pvp and that's because some weapons and spells are better than others due to animation locking, unavoidable effects etc. But these hardly matter for pve.

[Eternal Phoenix]

 

Refreshing, yet poorly designed, at least in the case of Dark Souls.

 

It is less about holding someones hand, and more about thoughtful design that isn't **** you hard, which Dark Souls honestly was. You were also limited in many ways because of that design; specific builds for example are always inherently better so you can survive, which is something I hate in RPGs, its optimization to the extreme. That is not the mark of a good game. 

 

I don't know, Dark Souls I was not impressed with. Original Sin I didn't play yet, but I hear good things.

 

The game punishes you for poor builds. If you start wielding a katana but level up in strength and wear heavy armor with it, it's going to be a bad build as the katana is based around dexterity and being fast. Limitation, however, is the last thing Dark Souls had with its completely open customization and thousands of different character builds. 

The game doesn't stop you from wielding two shields in both hands and (if you're skilled enough) beating the game with such a build. The mark of a good RPG is punishing the player for bad choices but not stopping them from going down such routes. You can't say Dark Souls was poorly designed because you made a bad build. That's part of the freedom and learning. Everything is viable in Dark Souls.

Not to mention, there is no other RPG out there which has as many builds which do work perfectly with each feeling different to play too not just because of statistics but because of all the different weapon combinations and combos unique to them.

 

If a game is well documented, there's no excuse for a poor build.

I don't think it's possible for a well documented hame to have trap abilities.

 

The worst part of Original Sin is that you need perception to discover some major things later on in the game, otherwise you can get stuck, missing a certain switch in a dungeon that only appears to a character with good perception. Hopefully that crap is patched soon.

I haven't played Original Sin multiple times to comment on the builds but I do know that you can beat the game even if you kill every NPC including the important ones (who aren't saved by plot armor). Unlike in many other RPG's, the plot in Original Sin isn't dependant on listening to some idiot babbling on or being an errand boy (aka an altar boy) and the game makes sure that no matter what, you can beat the main quest (so long as you know what you're doing).

 

I consider that good design when an RPG can accommodate multiple paths and solutions unlike say, Skyrim which has a linear main plot where the death of one important NPC (if it were possible) would prevent progression though the story. That's not the case in Original Sin where you might miss out on important plot information but if you know what you're doing, you can, say for example, deal with the entire undead menace in Cyseal without even talking to Arhu or the Legion Captain.

 

Clearly games like Original Sin and Baldur's Gate are not for our impatient friend Wafodie who needs to be guided by the hand to know what to do but I suppose that sums up many gamers nowadays who are quite impatient. You can forget what you're supposed to be doing in Original Sin if you don't listen to what NPC's have to say. I'm not saying I want all my RPG's like this but it's good to have a few RPG's releases again that are quite similar to the ones released over a decade ago where you have complete freedom as to what you do, who goes into your party and how to complete a quest.

[pdusen]

The game punishes you for poor builds. If you start wielding a katana but level up in strength and wear heavy armor with it, it's going to be a bad build as the katana is based around dexterity and being fast. Limitation, however, is the last thing Dark Souls had with its completely open customization and thousands of different character builds. 

The game doesn't stop you from wielding two shields in both hands and (if you're skilled enough) beating the game with such a build. The mark of a good RPG is punishing the player for bad choices but not stopping them from going down such routes. You can't say Dark Souls was poorly designed because you made a bad build. That's part of the freedom and learning. Everything is viable in Dark Souls.

 

 

Everything is viable? But right there you gave an example of something that's not viable. If a choice is always unequivocally wrong, what value does it really have as a choice?

 

I can't say I agree with your definition of an RPG. To me, the mark of a good RPG is putting me into the shoes of a character to experience a story and make meaningful choices.

[LinksOcarina]

I can think of a lot of criticisms about Dark Souls, but this is just wrong. The game is beatable by just getting the minimum requirements for weapon usage. This is a fact, I've personally done it and if you are skeptical just do a youtube search for speedruns. People beat the game naked with the most minimalistic builds possible, reaching weapon requirements and dumbing everything else into health and stamina (or not leveling at all past a point just to save some time).

 

And there are other considerations to be made if you want to compare it. For example Dark Souls doesn't have difficulty settings. Any dnd influenced rpg played on higher difficulties requires way more optimization than DS.

 

The only part of the game that quality builds matter is pvp and that's because some weapons and spells are better than others due to animation locking, unavoidable effects etc. But these hardly matter for pve.

 

Too bad PvP is the prevalent means for building in Dark Souls last I checked. Considering folks jump in and out on you all the time too if you are not careful. 

 

I honestly don't give a damn about difficulty settings from the past to the present either. It's irrelevant to the design of the game. Poor game design is usually what trial and error-mechanics have. Good games like Super Mario Bros. had it too, but it was rewarding over punishing you for it. Dark Souls has simply too much in unforgiving consequences. If you can beat the game half naked, good for you, you have timing and reflexes only a handful of people can accomplish, which is an achievement that is yours alone. Not everyone is so lucky in that department, nor will they ever be. 

 

Also a lot of minor quibs such as the bonfire mechanics,the adventure-game prerequisites for control (locked off areas until you meet the requirements) and enemy placement attributing to the **** you difficulty.  On the plus side,everything looked great at least, and I did like the minimalist mythology going on, although a bit more would have been nice.

 

 

 

 

 

The game punishes you for poor builds. If you start wielding a katana but level up in strength and wear heavy armor with it, it's going to be a bad build as the katana is based around dexterity and being fast. Limitation, however, is the last thing Dark Souls had with its completely open customization and thousands of different character builds. 

The game doesn't stop you from wielding two shields in both hands and (if you're skilled enough) beating the game with such a build. The mark of a good RPG is punishing the player for bad choices but not stopping them from going down such routes. You can't say Dark Souls was poorly designed because you made a bad build. That's part of the freedom and learning. Everything is viable in Dark Souls.

Not to mention, there is no other RPG out there which has as many builds which do work perfectly with each feeling different to play too not just because of statistics but because of all the different weapon combinations and combos unique to them.

 

 

If the goal of an RPG is to punish the player for "bad choices", then the choices made need to be expressed. If you go around carrying two shields against everything, but still win, is that a "bad choice" compared to the katana wielding heavy armor warrior? What if the roles were reversed because of the skill of the player to overcome the limitations given?

 

The problem is a lot of choices in Dark Souls tend to be optimized choices from the get go. For example, most builds I see online start with the Master Key as their item, or note that its highly preferable over others. Not just because it helps the build, but because of sequence breaking once you hit the Valley of Drakes, or to retrieve a specific item from the game that will give them power to utilize their build. 

 

But that's not a bad choice is it, to essentially game the game itself to reach your desired stats? A game can punish a player for poor builds, but when players resort to gaming the system with their build, that's not the mark of a good game either. It may have the uniqueness of other games in that regard due to the number of builds, but how many of them are really viable without a specific weapon, armor, item or tactic that all builds rely upon?

 

How is that good game design when your survival depends on one of those for your given build?

[AlanC9]

The problem is a lot of choices in Dark Souls tend to be optimized choices from the get go. For example, most builds I see online start with the Master Key as their item, or note that its highly preferable over others. Not just because it helps the build, but because of sequence breaking once you hit the Valley of Drakes, or to retrieve a specific item from the game that will give them power to utilize their build.

I'm not sure what this actually proves, though. In a free-form game where you can break sequences, pick up powerful items early, and so forth, it's pretty natural for build guides to tell you to do these things. Doesn't every Morrowind mage guide tell you to go pick up Mentor's Ring right away? If BG2 let you go to the Sahuagin City right away everyone would be told to head there first thing to pick up the Cloak of Cheese.

You see exploits mixed in with standard gameplay in strategy game guides too. A Rome: TW guide will typically tell a Julii player to attack Greece right away since it'll freeze up the Brutii AI, which is programmed to expand there.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Everything is viable? But right there you gave an example of something that's not viable. If a choice is always unequivocally wrong, what value does it really have as a choice?
 
I can't say I agree with your definition of an RPG. To me, the mark of a good RPG is putting me into the shoes of a character to experience a story and make meaningful choices.

 
It is viable because you can still beat the game with it if you're skilled enough. 
 
Also, where did I ever give what my definition of an RPG is? Also, Dark Souls has meaningful choices and ones that actually impact the world and character's fates (i.e killing Gwynevere, letting Lautrec live, going after Lautrec, the Rhea questline, forgiving Patches or not, decision to side with Kaathe or Frampt, Siegmeyer's three different fates depending on if the player helps him or abandons him, Solaire's fate etc).
 
 

If the goal of an RPG is to punish the player for "bad choices", then the choices made need to be expressed. If you go around carrying two shields against everything, but still win, is that a "bad choice" compared to the katana wielding heavy armor warrior? What if the roles were reversed because of the skill of the player to overcome the limitations given?
 
The problem is a lot of choices in Dark Souls tend to be optimized choices from the get go. For example, most builds I see online start with the Master Key as their item, or note that its highly preferable over others. Not just because it helps the build, but because of sequence breaking once you hit the Valley of Drakes, or to retrieve a specific item from the game that will give them power to utilize their build. 
 
But that's not a bad choice is it, to essentially game the game itself to reach your desired stats? A game can punish a player for poor builds, but when players resort to gaming the system with their build, that's not the mark of a good game either. It may have the uniqueness of other games in that regard due to the number of builds, but how many of them are really viable without a specific weapon, armor, item or tactic that all builds rely upon?
 
How is that good game design when your survival depends on one of those for your given build?

 
You clearly haven't played Dark Souls long enough by the sounds of it. Everyone starts with the Master Key because all other starting gifts are pretty much worthless so why disadvantage yourself for items that you can also find within an hour?  I don't understand how Dark Souls misses the mark for being a good game just because people now know where to find items that will make their builds good. People do the same for Castlevania Symphony of the Night because they know where to go. The people you've looked at are all veterans of the game and their playthroughs are no longer about experiencing Dark Souls as a fresh game but making the best build they can for PvP.

You've yet to explain why any of this makes Dark Souls a failure and the actions of other players in their own worlds isn't a good excuse.
 
And what exactly are you talking about with the mention of a "specific weapon, armor, item or tactic that all builds rely upon"? A zwiehander warrior can easily switch to any other strength based weapon at any given time and have it be just as effective providing that they have good strength. Likewise, a dexterity based warrior who uses a katana can switch to the spear which is dexterity based too and they'd be effective with it as well. Still don't see what you're getting at.