65 réponses à ce sujet

[Salaya]

Well, I've been playing for 40 hours or so and I've bought all the conversation perks, because I always liked persuasion skill. To this moment, though, I haven't found any single occasion to use them.

 

That seems like bad game design to me.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'd play something like that, but I fear that the major decision-makers don't believe there's enough of a market to make it worth their while (which doesn't mean that they're right.)

[Reymoose]

Having a ton of skills with highly idiosyncratic uses that you need to pump points into in character creation is terrible game design: so yes, Varric, Sera, and Cole should all be equally proficient locksmiths.  The alternative would be trying to guess which rogue skills the developers happened to design gameplay for in this installment and how.  Look at KoToR for how skill proliferation makes for terrible gameplay.  DA:I's way of doing things is FAR superior.  There are four skill perks that are all used very widely in the game.  

 

And regarding your specific example: it would be better to have branching quest options.  You need to get the macgufin.  There are three ways to do so:

1. Fight your way to it,
2. Talk your way to it,
3. Subtlety.

Talking your way to it would require the right conversation perks and/or dialogue options.  Subtelty could be class-specific.  Some subtlety quests would require a rogue for sneaking/stealing.  Some would require a mage for glamoring people, while some would require a warrior to...  ...I got nothing.

 

DA:I already implements options 1 and 2.  It would be interesting to see DA4 implement option 3 as well.

 

Again, I didn't say that Varric, Sera, Cole couldn't all be proficient at picking locks, but that there should be a reason for them to be, not simply because they are the ambigious 'rogue' class.

 

The lock-picking is just an example, I actually don't think anyone would have a problem with the way DA:I does it, which I'm a proponent of, I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

 

The pick-pocketing/stealing would work if say in the ambient dialogue or somewhere if you pay attention to what was said, it could be revealed that character X keeps item Y on their person, or in their room, so instead of a confrontation you have the option to take the path of subterfuge.

 

The examples you mentioned could be tied to class, where a mage would be more likely to charm (magically or otherwise) in a conversation, a rogue may be able to lie/coerce better, and a warrior physically intimidate conversations where that would make sense (human npc's but not demons/powerful characters for example).

 

The thing that this type of stuff does it make your character have more depth, and if those choices have consequence (another example, a mage charming a character may be able to recruit them into the Inquisition whereas a warrior intimidating them would have them flee/avoid the Inquisition), all the better, and adds a different personality to each Inquisitor. 

[WillieStyle]

Well, I've been playing for 40 hours or so and I've bought all the conversation perks, because I always liked persuasion skill. To this moment, though, I haven't found any single occasion to use them.

 

That seems like bad game design to me.

 

If you've been playing for 40 hours, you've likely used at least one conversation perk.  They are usually the top left option. They often come with a special symbol inside the conversation wheel: (a raven, a crown etc.).  They are often subtle; so you might not realize they are optional until you play a character that doesn't have them.  Can't say more without spoilers.

[WillieStyle]

Again, I didn't say that Varric, Sera, Cole couldn't all be proficient at picking locks, but that there should be a reason for them to be, not simply because they are the ambigious 'rogue' class.

 

The ambiguous "rogue" class is a succinct way to represent within gameplay a whole series of events and traits in a character's background.  Its generality is its strength.  Overly specific character skills make for terrible gameplay.

 

Look, the whole "dump 50 points into basket-weaving" thing started in an era with Dungeon Masters.  In that era, there was no gameplay, so skill rolls where a poor-man's alternative.  Furthermore, your Dungeon Master knew which skills you had taken.  So if he or she was good at her role, she would craft the story so that each player felt that their skills were useful.  Every so often, basket-weaving would be crucial to overcoming some obstacle or other.  She'd of course also have situations that seemed to require skills that none of you had just to increase the tension.

 

In a computer game, the developers don't have the luxury of adapting the story to every single combination of party skills you might choose.  So when they keep the DnD skill point system, you end up with games like KoToR where most skills were garbage.

[Aurok]

I'd like more games like that, I just don't particularly want modern day Bioware to be the one making them. I don't think they'd be strong at any aspect of it.

[Lucky Thirteen]

Oh yeah, was totally interested in Wasteland 2, did the beta, typed up character profiles for my initial 4. Didn't realize when I played the Beta that the characters can permanently die. Those 4 I spent all the time creating little stories for ended up all dying when I made a stupid mistake. My medic went down, the three went down, a newbie I picked up was left standing and I couldn't bring the initial 4 back without going to an earlier save.  Haven't played the game since that day of incredible frustration.

 

Here I was thinking the old school stuff was more story focused. Whats the point of having that empty word box to creatively fill out if everyone can just all die like that.

[metatheurgist]

In a computer game, the developers don't have the luxury of adapting the story to every single combination of party skills you might choose.  So when they keep the DnD skill point system, you end up with games like KoToR where most skills were garbage.

That's just good game design. The developer can decide which skills are useful and only include them in the game. There's nothing wrong with making characters that have useless skills, sometimes that's fun too, not that the rest of my party agrees.

Though I'd like to see a game dev give you a list of "useless" skills, then reward a player that took them by providing an epic scenario where each end every skill has an unexpected and incredible application.

[Salaya]

If you've been playing for 40 hours, you've likely used at least one conversation perk.  They are usually the top left option. They often come with a special symbol inside the conversation wheel: (a raven, a crown etc.).  They are often subtle; so you might not realize they are optional until you play a character that doesn't have them.  Can't say more without spoilers.

 

I've seen the special option twice; both times gave me two extra options, not perk related, but mage or elf related stuff. I'm really wondering if those perks are bugged or something. Maybe I was not supposed to buy the four and the system got bugged? It's a bit disappointing...

[WillieStyle]

I've seen the special option twice; both times gave me two extra options, not perk related, but mage or elf related stuff. I'm really wondering if those perks are bugged or something. Maybe I was not supposed to buy the four and the system got bugged? It's a bit disappointing...

Have you talked to the smuggler in Redcliffe? Or the Inquisiton scout who went missing in southeast Hinterlands?

[Vox Draco]

The state of some answers here is saddening.

The OP is talking about bringing RPG back to a more rounded experience, and a bunch of idiots use "times have moved on" (like if the "most recent" was a sign of quality in an idea ) and mock the idea of improving your avatar in any area that isn't combat-based...

 

/facepalm

 

If those things were an improvement ... I don't think it is, if the actual game makes no use of those non-combat skills. And not alibi-uses like the pick-pocket-skill.

 

But maybe some people are too focused on numbers that make up their char? For me at least, I make the char up in my mind, make him/her as strong as I see fit, and without the needs for numbers for that...

 

But, being a backer of Pillars of Eternity, we'll see how they will bring back ye goode olde days of RPG-ing (didn't follow the game that much the last year, not interested in spoiling myself too much)

[Salaya]

Have you talked to the smuggler in Redcliffe? Or the Inquisiton scout who went missing in southeast Hinterlands?

 

Yes, both (the woman smuggling lirium I guess; the scout is more blurry in my mind, thoug, but I remember an encounter with a scout in my first hours). Are those supposed to be chances to use conversation perks then?

[In Exile]

The success of Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2, the Banner Saga, and the anticipation for Pillars of Eternity shows there is still a fair bit of interest in old-school RPGs. People keep declaring them dead, but they keep crawling out of the grave like something out of a Romero movie. I'd get behind a DA game with old school mechanics in a heartbeat. My fantasy DA game would be a game with Divinity's gameplay, with Bioware's story and characters.

I wouldn't say those games were successful. We don't know if they were more succesful than ToEE and IWD which is what they mimic, not BG2 or PS:T which they have 0 in common with actually.

It really bothers me when people lump isometric RPGs toghether. There's a big difference between a create your own party combat oriented game and a story driven single PC game.

And banner saga is just such a different game I don't get why you even mention it.

[In Exile]

That's just good game design. The developer can decide which skills are useful and only include them in the game. There's nothing wrong with making characters that have useless skills, sometimes that's fun too, not that the rest of my party agrees.

Though I'd like to see a game dev give you a list of "useless" skills, then reward a player that took them by providing an epic scenario where each end every skill has an unexpected and incredible application.

It's garbage design when you don't know ahead of time a very useful sounding skill is trash. That's what DAO was like - it was trash roulette the first time you played through figuring out which abilities didn't suck.

[Salaya]

I wouldn't say those games were successful.
 

 

You wouldn't say it, but you would be partially mistaken, at least. Original Sin has been successful:  Source

[Sondermann]

You wouldn't say it, but you would be partially mistaken, at least. Original Sin has been successful:  Source

What is considered a success for Larian (selling 600k copies) would not necessarily be considered a success for BW though.

[AlanC9]

So I am loving Inquisition, but the old school Baldur's Gate fan in me laments the loss of hard RPG elements in this game. Stat checks, secondary skills, that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I understand why. you're moving with the times and the market.
 
But lately, interest in Torment, Wasteland, Pillars of Eternity, the BG Enhanced Editions and Divinity have heralded a new age of isometric, deep-system, low(ish) budget RPGs. So why can't Bioware, the grand-pappy of accessible, story-rich CRPGS, get in on this? 

What does isometric have to do with stat checks and secondary skills, anyway? Beyond the fact that some old games bundled these things together, of course.

[AlanC9]

What is considered a success for Larian (selling 600k copies) would not necessarily be considered a success for BW though.

Yeah, but the OP's specifically asking for a low-budget game, so that's covered.

The conceptual problem isn't whether the game would make money. I'm not even sure EA'd mind Bio playing in the B-game space with a couple of projects. I'm just not sure there's any instituitional appetite at Bio for abandoning cinematic design, which they'd have to do for a low-budget project.

[Sondermann]

Yeah, but the OP's specifically asking for a low-budget game, so that's covered.

I guess he'd still expect "BioWare quality" from a BioWare game though and that would mean using staff that cannot be used in other projects. What would be the point for BW to contract out the game to a different developer?

[Salaya]

What is considered a success for Larian (selling 600k copies) would not necessarily be considered a success for BW though.

 

Well, yes, of course. I did not brought that because I think BW should follow Larian in RPGs style. I brought it because it's not true to say that Original Sin was not successful (or, like in this case, state that we don't know if the game was successful). 

[WillieStyle]

Yes, both (the woman smuggling lirium I guess; the scout is more blurry in my mind, thoug, but I remember an encounter with a scout in my first hours). Are those supposed to be chances to use conversation perks then?

Yes. Have you recruited either of them as agents?

[AlanC9]

But maybe some people are too focused on numbers that make up their char? For me at least, I make the char up in my mind, make him/her as strong as I see fit, and without the needs for numbers for that...
 

Hmm... do you go as far as, say, deliberately avoiding a persuasion-check dialogue option because you've decided that your character isn't the persuasive type? I had problems in ME3 because it's almost impossible to fail the Charm/Intimidate checks with an imported character, unless you skip a lot of content. (ME2 had a different issue; Shepard's persuasiveness was largely random due to the P/R implementation.)

[DemGeth]

OP I just don't get why.

There's indie devs that can only do cheap crpgs I'd rather support over bioware doing a cheap crpgs.

Bio can do there thing and indie devs can do there's.

[Vox Draco]

Hmm... do you go as far as, say, deliberately avoiding a persuasion-check dialogue option because you've decided that your character isn't the persuasive type? I had problems in ME3 because it's almost impossible to fail the Charm/Intimidate checks with an imported character, unless you skip a lot of content. (ME2 had a different issue; Shepard's persuasiveness was largely random due to the P/R implementation.)

 

That depends on the dialogue, situation, not so much of the character. Though if I play, lets say, a more renegade, warmongering char, I avoid the persuasion anyway.

 

OP I just don't get why.

There's indie devs that can only do cheap crpgs I'd rather support over bioware doing a cheap crpgs.

Bio can do there thing and indie devs can do there's.

 

Amen to that. If I want classical and tactical RPGs we have Wasteland 2, Divinity, Tides of Numeria, Pillars coming. And for more cinematic and less clunky approach to the genre we have Bioware. I am greedy, I want it all!

[DLaren]

Sounds good to me OP.

 

A few folks have said the "world has moved on"...judging by Inquisitions sales (or lack thereof...), no "the world" hasn't.

 

I take it a step further than the OP, Bioware should scrap this new vision (throw the Frostbite engine in the pile with it) and return to their roots -- the next Dragon Age game (if there is a 'next' game) should be a true successor to Origins (using the same engine/mechanics); not some cast-a-way game made in-between development cycles.