371 réponses à ce sujet

[pdusen]

Also, where did I ever give what my definition of an RPG is? 

 

Not to draw this out too much, but

 

The mark of a good RPG is punishing the player for bad choices but not stopping them from going down such routes.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Not to draw this out too much, but

 

And that's my explicit definition of an RPG?

 

Like I just defined CRPG's and action RPG's both there? I wasn't just saying that the mark of a good RPG game is freedom of choice which I elaborated on in the rest of that post? 

 

Okay.

 

[pdusen]

And that's my explicit definition of an RPG?

 

Like I just defined CRPG's and action RPG's both there? I wasn't just saying that the mark of a good RPG game is freedom of choice which I elaborated on in the rest of that post? 

 

Okay.

 

 

Please don't be intentionally obtuse. My response was clearly a rebuttal to what you said in the line quoted, and not to whatever else could be considered an RPG.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

DA: Inquisition won't be anything like Baldur's Gate. Bioware no longer make their games at such level of excellence anymore. 

 

If you want Baldur's Gate-esque style gaming, check out Pillars of Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenara. 

 

Cheers. 

[Gtdef]

@linksocarina

 

What you are describing is optimizing for excellence, not for beating the game. A player doesn't need to get the master key to beat the game. Of course he is at a disadvantage if he doesn't, if only cause the other starting items suck. The only viable alternative is to get the bombs so you can kill asylum demon for the weapon. But really that's metagaming at it's most basic form. I can agree that it wasn't handled well, but that's not a problem with the design. It's the imbalance between the key and the other choices. If the key opened only one door, that leads to a particular item, that would be balanced, cause you have other choices that give about the same bonus. But it does way more than that, so it's the better choice.

 

I can do stuff like that in DAO too, get forcefield, kill high dragon at a very low lvl or in jade empire, spec the spirit thief into damage and deal with the ghosts without any trouble. Or get diplomacy in any d20 ruleset. There isn't a single game that doesn't allow for stuff like that. I don't really get what Dark Souls does so differently that it needs to be highlighted. Is it the multiplayer component? You can always go hollow and you can't be invaded. You can make a conscious risk vs reward choice. I think this is great design. You will be weaker in the game, but safe from invasions and you can focus more on learning the encounters and less watching your back.

 

I don't really understand what do you mean by "too much unforgiving consequences". That's certainly not my experience. The only bad part about this is that bonfires tend to be far away from the difficult spots so you spend a lot of time running around. This could be handled better because it ends up being boring. I actually liked what they did for some sequences in DS2 where some levels are more frightening, with lower lighting and higher chance of falling to your death than dying from enemies. So either take it slow, learn it by heart or die and have to start all over again.

 

My only real problem with Dark Souls it's hard to actually learn the mechanics of the game. I remember the first time I've played, I didn't have any idea how many points to dumb into agility, or how to enchant my weapons. I couldn't understand why sometimes when I roll I take damage while others I don't. But this is kind of the point with the asian design. I've played Lineage 2 for so long, I should have known better.

 

Edit: I'm kind of sleepy and I think this post is hard to read, sorry for that. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

Please don't be intentionally obtuse. My response was clearly a rebuttal to what you said in the line quoted, and not to whatever else could be considered an RPG.

 

A needless rebuttal to a quote you took out of context to start a new (and pointless) argument. I've already explained what I meant in any case so I'm not going to elaborate again.

[Wafodie.]

DA: Inquisition won't be anything like Baldur's Gate. Bioware no longer make their games at such level of excellence.

If you want Baldur's Gate-esque style gaming, check out Pillars of Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenara.

Cheers.

They won't be any good if they're like BG.

I don't like Dark Souls either.

Harder doesn't mean enjoyment to me.

[Eternal Phoenix]

They won't be any good if they're like BG.

I don't like Dark Souls either.

Harder doesn't mean enjoyment to me.

 

That's an absolute statement if I've ever heard one. You might not enjoy them but you can't say "they won't be good because of my personal preference" that's just stupid.

[AlanC9]

Well, he was replying to a fairly ridiculous and absolute statement too.

[CronoDragoon]

That's an absolute statement if I've ever heard one. You might not enjoy them but you can't say "they won't be good because of my personal preference" that's just stupid.

 

You gonna call out the guy he quoted, too?

[LinksOcarina]

@linksocarina

 

What you are describing is optimizing for excellence, not for beating the game. A player doesn't need to get the master key to beat the game. Of course he is at a disadvantage if he doesn't, if only cause the other starting items suck. The only viable alternative is to get the bombs so you can kill asylum demon for the weapon. But really that's metagaming at it's most basic form. I can agree that it wasn't handled well, but that's not a problem with the design. It's the imbalance between the key and the other choices. If the key opened only one door, that leads to a particular item, that would be balanced, cause you have other choices that give about the same bonus. But it does way more than that, so it's the better choice.

 

I can do stuff like that in DAO too, get forcefield, kill high dragon at a very low lvl or in jade empire, spec the spirit thief into damage and deal with the ghosts without any trouble. Or get diplomacy in any d20 ruleset. There isn't a single game that doesn't allow for stuff like that. I don't really get what Dark Souls does so differently that it needs to be highlighted. Is it the multiplayer component? You can always go hollow and you can't be invaded. You can make a conscious risk vs reward choice. I think this is great design. You will be weaker in the game, but safe from invasions and you can focus more on learning the encounters and less watching your back.

 

I don't really understand what do you mean by "too much unforgiving consequences". That's certainly not my experience. The only bad part about this is that bonfires tend to be far away from the difficult spots so you spend a lot of time running around. This could be handled better because it ends up being boring. I actually liked what they did for some sequences in DS2 where some levels are more frightening, with lower lighting and higher chance of falling to your death than dying from enemies. So either take it slow, learn it by heart or die and have to start all over again.

 

My only real problem with Dark Souls it's hard to actually learn the mechanics of the game. I remember the first time I've played, I didn't have any idea how many points to dumb into agility, or how to enchant my weapons. I couldn't understand why sometimes when I roll I take damage while others I don't. But this is kind of the point with the asian design. I've played Lineage 2 for so long, I should have known better.

 

Edit: I'm kind of sleepy and I think this post is hard to read, sorry for that. 

 

An imbalance between items is always part of the design, however. If the key is inherently better than everything else you start with, why do you not take the key every time? More to the point, the reason it is better is due to exploits and bonus, a metagame aspect that is the video game version of power gaming. 

 

The issue seems to be that people don't think this is part of game design, but it is. An RPG like Dead Island is about power creep; the enemies don't get tougher, they just get more HP and do more damage as you level up. This is credo to the design, and why players in the first game don't fight optional bosses until they level up, so the weapons they drop are maximized in power, since it ties to your level. 

 

The power creep is less exploitative in say Borderlands 2, but the principle is the same, much like other loot-style dungeon crawlers like Diablo, but that's part of the design of the game. I may not like it, but it's effective as a design mechanic because it forces the player to abandon weaponry for better weaponry as the game progresses (Borderlands 2 not so much, you can use a level 15 weapon all the way to level 30, a major improvement that I enjoy personally). 

 

You bring up the exploits in Origins and other games, the difference however is with Origins, the exploits are fewer and not necessary to beat the game, nor give you an easy reward. Killing the dragon to achieve it's loot by focefielding is one thing, skipping the fight and getting the same loot is something else entirely. There is also no item that you start with that's inherently better than the rest outside of DLC bonuses, it is tied instead to class restrictions and how you build the character, so there is less "absolute" builds that many adhere to (Dex Warrior notwithstanding...) 

 

The risk vs. reward for going hollow is a nice touch, but it's like the constant online presence in Watch Dogs, where the rewards are minimal with outside involvement being a crapshoot of helpful, or harmful, to your experience. I would agree if there was a lesser penalty to going hollow, but losing all of your souls and humanities permanently is risk-adverse, making hollow mode more dangerous if you are an unskilled or inexperienced at the game.

 

You touched on the controls which I admit I didn't have a problem with, but I guess like any game it depends on how used to them you are. 

 

I feel like I am in an uphill battle here again, I should just stop since i'm clearly not going to convince anyone of anything.

[Ieldra]

Eh....what are you all talking about? I don't understand a word. I understand it's about exploits and outliers in item power, but not what you're actually arguing for or against.

[Gtdef]

-snip-

 

You got too much into power creep and while I understand these, I don't get what's your problem with Dark Souls. I can only assume that you think that the process of gearing is finished by the time you are done with the masterkey build order. Correct me if I misunderstood but if not then that's false. That's not the design of the game. Instead you have an enchanting system with limited materials. Every time you enchant your weapon is like you get a new one. That's a stereotypical asian design, it's widely used and extremely efficient. In case of Dark Souls it allows you to have progression while keeping personal preference.

 

Also I don't understand why you see my examples as not necessary to beat the game but you don't think the same about metagaming in Dark Souls. If beating the game is the only objective, then you can do it without master key build orders, while avoiding multiplayer. The game even provides unique and enchanted weapons along the way so you can shortcut the whole gearing scheme if you really want to (although it's not recommended obviously). And even if you do optimize, you still need some ability to beat the game, where as in the examples I provided, anyone can do them with minimal effort. The power creep doesn't even need to be taken into account cause the game is already broken beyond any semblance of challenge, whereas you can't possibly break Dark Souls cause you start weak and the strongest you can get is still inadequate to go up against a boss with equal footing. The best you can do is endure one more hit and take a few less attacks to kill a boss. (which essentially means that you will have to learn the fight and execute it well, even if you have to repeat the patterns less times, that's perfectly fine in my book).

 

As for the master key itself, it's a problem but not really.. The whole point here is that if they just remove the choice and make master key default then the problem is 100% fixed. If it's removed all together then it's fixed again.

 

I think either of these solutions are enough and there are no more considerations to be made. And probably the main reason we disagree. Because I believe that using the master key build order is simply optimizing for excellence and not vital in any shape or form as long as the objective is to just beat the game.

[Ieldra]

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.
[lots of good examples snipped]

You know, this is why I'm so nostalgic about some of the old games and why I think that Fallout 1+2, PST and Arcanum are unmatched as RPGs to this day. Some newer games are pretty decent as well - Deus Ex:Human Revolution and Fallout:New Vegas come to mind - but the general tendency is rather "add more combat", and none of the newer games has quite as much roleplaying content as the aforementioned ones.
Of course, I find it hard to play the old games these days because they haven't aged gracefully. One reason why I'm backing Pillars of Eternity is because I hope for the kind of roleplaying content I liked in FO1+2, PST and Arcanum combined with a reasonably modern presentation.

Bioware has never done this well, with the possible exception of KotOR, so I don't expect them to start now, but it would be really nice if one option for resolving situations without combat became the rule rather than the exception. Actually, I recall one instance where they did it well: in DAO's "Captured!" quest, where you had two options to escape Fort Drakon without combat, or you could just fight your way out, or wait for your companions to get you.

[Gtdef]

Bioware has never done this well, with the possible exception of KotOR, so I don't expect them to start now, but it would be really nice if one option for resolving situations without combat became the rule rather than the exception. Actually, I recall one instance where they did it well: in DAO's "Captured!" quest, where you had two options to escape Fort Drakon without combat, or you could just fight your way out, or wait for your companions to get you.

 

I agree. I'm mainly interested in combat and gameplay but this fixation on multiple generic combat encounters actually gets on my nerves too. The reason is that it's repetitive, uninteresting and offers no real challenge. Beat one group of melee, beat them all. That's it.

 

After all the most interesting optimization happens in pnp games, and for good reason. So many things to consider other than how to maximize damage.

[Eternal Phoenix]

You gonna call out the guy he quoted, too?

 
So Inquisition will be Baldur's Gate-esque? What exactly should I be calling out from the other guy? I agree with him that Baldur's Gate is Bioware's best and many others do. The census is that it's certainly Bioware's best game. DA: Inquisition won't be anything like Baldur's Gate but that's fine, I'm sure it'll be a good game in its own right and a worthy successor to Origins...hopefully.

[Wafodie.]

I don't want Inquisition to be like Baldur's Gate. I want it to be more like DA2 mixed with Skyrim.

[Eternal Phoenix]

I don't want Inquisition to be like Baldur's Gate. I want it to be more like DA2 mixed with Skyrim.

 

[Jester]

I don't want Inquisition to be like Baldur's Gate. I want it to be more like DA2 mixed with Skyrim.

Those are literaly the only two RPGs that I don't want the Inquisition to be like.

[AlanC9]

So Inquisition will be Baldur's Gate-esque? What exactly should I be calling out from the other guy? I agree with him that Baldur's Gate is Bioware's best and many others do. The census is that it's certainly Bioware's best game.

Yeah, but that's fueled by nostalgia.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Yeah, but that's fueled by nostalgia.

 

Totally, I only played it for the first time two years ago.   Nostalgia indeed.

 

Any other assumptions you wish to pass?

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Is pretty surprising how some people are still stuck in 1998 with their preferences for RPG's, Fallout 2 was better then BG anyway IMO

[UniformGreyColor]

Is pretty surprising how some people are still stuck in 1998 with their preferences for RPG's, Fallout 2 was better then BG anyway IMO

 

 Does that make your opinion more valid? C'mon be realistic.

[Iakus]

Well, he was replying to a fairly ridiculous and absolute statement too.

It's a ridiculous and absolute statment to say that Pillars of Eternity and Tides of Numenera will be Baldur's Gate-like games?

 

Odd, given that's exactly how they were advertised.

 

or that Bioware doesn't make games as high-quality as BG anymore?  Definitely more of a personal opinion.  But one backed by recent events