583 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Wasn't it explicitly marketed as an ARPG? "With tactical elements".... Whether or not it nailed the addendum is a matter of perspective, I suppose, but Bioware were pretty upfront about the "A" in front of "RPG".

I disagree. I heard the words "tactical" and "strategic" used in nearly all marketing materials that pertained to combat. They pitched it as a system that allowed you to play action or tactical with equal parity. But that's not the case - trying to issue movement commands to your party should not feel like herding cats in a game that is tactical.

[o Ventus]

The design of those games assumed the player would be using the pause and play features of these games. Everyone who complained that DA:O was difficult on Normal difficulty likely failed to comprehend it was difficult if you completely ignored your party and tried to go around attacking and spamming skills until cooldown like you would in WoW instead of managing your party.

Same goes for Fallout - the shooter mechanics of the game were incredibly poor compared to most other FPS on the market in terms of cover, aiming, targeting and movement... it's because the game expected you to have use of the VATS system to some degree and not play like CoD.

DA:I does not assume you will play on the Tac Cam. It does not scale it's combat to assume you will manage your party. And even if it did, the fact that yor companions "forget" your commands to them as soon as you leave the Tac Cam view further cements the fact that the game was not designed with this play style in mind.

 

I don't think I've ever played DAO using the pause-and-play. I'd pause once, maybe twice during the course of the game to emergency heal, but 99.9999% of the time I would play it in real-time. Same goes for Fallout. the only time I would bother using VATS is when I went up against a boss-type of enemy and wanted to be done with the combat quickly.

 

If anything, DAO is too easy on Normal. I can literally just right-click to initiate combat, walk away to get food or a drink, and the fight will be over by the time I get back because it's so passive and automated (I would know this because it's how I "fought" the Ogre in the Tower of Ishal and Branka in the Deep Roads). A companion might fall while I'm away, but that's hardly an issue when every other loot container holds multiple injury kits.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think I've ever played DAO using the pause-and-play. I'd pause once, maybe twice during the course of the game to emergency heal, but 99.9999% of the time I would play it in real-time. Same goes for Fallout. the only time I would bother using VATS is when I went up against a boss-type of enemy and wanted to be done with the combat quickly.

If anything, DAO is too easy on Normal. I can literally just right-click to initiate combat, walk away to get food or a drink, and the fight will be over by the time I get back because it's so passive and automated (I would know this because it's how I "fought" the Ogre in the Tower of Ishal and Branka in the Deep Roads). A companion might fall while I'm away, but that's hardly an issue when every other loot container holds multiple injury kits.

And I'd argue you are playing both games wrong. Or, at the very least, suboptimally. It reminds me of Arcanum - a game that should not be played in real time except for the briefest of encounters.

My comment in regards to difficulty was one Mike Laidlaw made himself after DA:O came out (during the time when Bioware made the bizarre decision to trash talk one of their best performing games of all time), saying DA:O on Normal was too hard and they were working to fix that with DA2. Shortly before the Awesome Button talk began.



Maybe the better solution would be to quit trying to place an "A" on every button masher who has levels and, instead, add a "T" (for traditional) to RPGs which follow a less action-based design ideology.

[o Ventus]

And I'd argue you are playing both games wrong. Or, at the very least, suboptimally. It reminds me of Arcanum - a game that should not be played in real time except for the briefest of encounters.

I know you're not an idiot, so I won't write an essay about why "playing the game wrong" is an invalid point to make. That's not even a matter of opinion. One cannot play a game wrong unless they are deliberately not playing by the rules set by the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

I know you're not an idiot, so I won't write an essay about why "playing the game wrong" is an invalid point to make. That's not even a matter of opinion. One cannot play a game wrong unless they are deliberately not playing by the rules set by the game.

You can play Blackjack by hitting every card you have until you bust and still play by the rules of the game. Unless your objective is to give the casino money, you are playing the game wrong.

[o Ventus]

You can play Blackjack by hitting every card you have until you bust and still play by the rules of the game. Unless your objective is to give the casino money, you are playing the game wrong.

 

And someone still wouldn't be playing Blackjack wrong. They'd be playing incredibly poorly, but not *wrong*. A team can play a game of gridiron football using only passes and never bother to actually run the ball, despite that being roughly half the offensive game, that doesn't make it *wrong*. One cannot play a game wrong unless they're knowingly cheating or otherwise ignoring rules.

 

If a game like DAO even so much as gives the option to play in real-time, then it is by definition not wrong, because you have the devs' explicit permission to play that way.

[Fast Jimmy]

And someone still wouldn't be playing Blackjack wrong. They'd be playing incredibly poorly, but not *wrong*. A team can play a game of gridiron football using only passes and never bother to actually run the ball, despite that being roughly half the offensive game, that doesn't make it *wrong*. One cannot play a game wrong unless they're knowingly cheating or otherwise ignoring rules.

If a game like DAO even so much as gives the option to play in real-time, then it is by definition not wrong, because you have the devs' explicit permission to play that way.

Hence I add the sentence "or at least playing suboptimally."

Which, in itself, is not a problem. But in an attempt to make action elements become optimal for future DA games, they made the pause-and-play and other tactical elements of the DA franchise suboptimal. Now I'M the one playing the game wrong.

To me, that's enough to call the game a different genre. Saying its not an RPG may be a prickly debate, but it certainly is a different animal than DA:O.

[o Ventus]

Hence I add the sentence "or at least playing suboptimally."

Which, in itself, is not a problem. But in an attempt to make action elements become optimal for future DA games, they made the pause-and-play and other tactical elements of the DA franchise suboptimal. Now I'M the one playing the game wrong.

To me, that's enough to call the game a different genre. Saying its not an RPG may be a prickly debate, but it certainly is a different animal than DA:O.

 

That's not saying much, since every game in the series thus far has been different from the last.

[Cyonan]

Hence I add the sentence "or at least playing suboptimally."

Which, in itself, is not a problem. But in an attempt to make action elements become optimal for future DA games, they made the pause-and-play and other tactical elements of the DA franchise suboptimal. Now I'M the one playing the game wrong.

To me, that's enough to call the game a different genre. Saying its not an RPG may be a prickly debate, but it certainly is a different animal than DA:O.

 

How exactly is playing Origins in real time even "suboptimal"?

 

It's fairly slow paced combat without a ton of abilities to manage. It doesn't take a Korean Starcraft player to be able to manage it in real time, especially with the tactics menu that the game has.

 

I'll agree that they made playing it in action mode more optimal for Inquisition but in Origins I felt it was more 50/50, at least on PC.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's not saying much, since every game in the series thus far has been different from the last.

Which is an entirely different problem altogether. Trust me.

[DragonKingReborn]

Which is an entirely different problem altogether. Trust me.

 

On that, at least, we are in complete and unreserved agreement.

[Fast Jimmy]

How exactly is playing Origins in real time even "suboptimal"?

It's fairly slow paced combat without a ton of abilities to manage. It doesn't take a Korean Starcraft player to be able to manage it in real time, especially with the tactics menu that the game has.

I'll agree that they made playing it in action mode more optimal for Inquisition but in Origins I felt it was more 50/50, at least on PC.

No, you are exactly right - I can imagine it would be incredibly boring and tedious to play on Normal (let alone Casual) and stick with one character... that would be a snore. It's not sub-optimal as to make it harder (although on Nightmare it is more required), it just sounds dreadful. Like watching a basketball game where the camera only stayed on one player, regardless who has the ball.

[AlanC9]

And someone still wouldn't be playing Blackjack wrong. They'd be playing incredibly poorly, but not *wrong*. A team can play a game of gridiron football using only passes and never bother to actually run the ball, despite that being roughly half the offensive game, that doesn't make it *wrong*. One cannot play a game wrong unless they're knowingly cheating or otherwise ignoring rules.

I'd add a criterion. If you play a game in a way that defeats your own objectives in playing that game, you're playing it wrong. Kinda what Fast Jimmy's talking about in the post above. Trying to play DAI as a completionist comes to mind, for people who don't find that approach fun in DAI.

I can think of a couple of ME3 examples too -- using the journal rather than the map to handle Citadel sidequests, and handling system scanning by just pinging all over the place and reloading once you've found everything. These don't really work for the player. For the former, the map tells you everything you need to know (except for one bugged mission), wile the journal does not. For the latter, if your load times are anything like mine it's faster to just do the minigame as intended.

[Il Divo]

No, you are exactly right - I can imagine it would be incredibly boring and tedious to play on Normal (let alone Casual) and stick with one character... that would be a snore. It's not sub-optimal as to make it harder (although on Nightmare it is more required), it just sounds dreadful. Like watching a basketball game where the camera only stayed on one player, regardless who has the ball.

 

Is it bad if this is my preferred method of playing Origins? 

[AlanC9]

Is it bad if this is my preferred method of playing Origins? 

Only if you're not enjoying it.

[Il Divo]

Only if you're not enjoying it.

 

Only when playing a Rogue. As a Mage, it was a damn good time. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Is it bad if this is my preferred method of playing Origins?

Bad? Certainly not. But enough design decisions were made in DA:O in favor of the tactical form of gameplay to make the gameplay weighted towards the method of party management over direct, single unit control.

[o Ventus]

I'd add a criterion. If you play a game in a way that defeats your own objectives in playing that game, you're playing it wrong. Kinda what Fast Jimmy's talking about in the post above. Trying to play DAI as a completionist comes to mind, for people who don't find that approach fun in DAI.

 

If you're playing the game in a way that is less fun for you than if you had done so in a different way (and you know you're playing in a fashion that isn't fun but you continue to do it anyway), then you're an idiot. You're not "playing wrong", you're just stupid.

 

I can think of a couple of ME3 examples too -- using the journal rather than the map to handle Citadel sidequests, and handling system scanning by just pinging all over the place and reloading once you've found everything. These don't really work for the player. For the former, the map tells you everything you need to know (except for one bugged mission), wile the journal does not. For the latter, if your load times are anything like mine it's faster to just do the minigame as intended.

 

That's not "playing wrong" either, since looking at a map as opposed to reading a journal isn't "playing" the game. 

 

If someone is playing a game, and the way they play the game allows them to reach the end of the game without having to resort to cheating, then they're playing fine. There is no right or wrong way to play so long as you adhere to the rules. You can play poorly or you can play very well, but not *wrong*. 

[AlanC9]

If you're playing the game in a way that is less fun for you than if you had done so in a different way (and you know you're playing in a fashion that isn't fun but you continue to do it anyway), then you're an idiot. You're not "playing wrong", you're just stupid.

What's wrong with calling it "wrong"?

[DragonKingReborn]

What's wrong with calling it "wrong"?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but for me; it implies a sense of moral and/or intellectual authority over the choices of the gamer in question that the user does not possess.  There are smart and stupid ways of playing (or doing) almost anything.  But unless the activity is one with an outcome that can be measured in a binary sense, "wrong" is simply inaccurate.  Jimmy used "suboptimal" which I think is better, but that's just me.

Modifié par DragonKingReborn, 24 mars 2015 - 10:28 .

[AlanC9]

Hmm. Slate's got a "You're Doing It Wrong" feature about cooking. I didn't think that they were implying any sort of moral or intellectual superiority over people who undecook eggplant.

[o Ventus]

What's wrong with calling it "wrong"?

The fact that it's not "wrong", for starters. Calling something wrong when it is not *wrong*, is wrong.

[o Ventus]

Hmm. Slate's got a "You're Doing It Wrong" feature about cooking. I didn't think that they were implying any sort of moral or intellectual superiority over people who undecook eggplant.

Apples and oranges. Cooking and gaming are different on several fundamental levels. If one cooks a piece of food *wrong*, they can get sick and die. If one plays a game "wrong", it's just a less-than-optimal way to play and poses no risk of death or injury or illness to the player. I'm surprised you tried to use such a sh*tty comparison.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes ME was better, ME2 is still an incredible game.

So incredible that I didn't even bother following the development of ME3. ME2 actively opposed my preferred playstyle, so I hated it.

Shortly after ME3's release, I met a guy who worked for EA (we were both in a focus group about something else), and he was all prepared to defend the ending of ME3 - he wasn't at all prepared for my thorough distaste for ME2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The fact that it's not "wrong", for starters. Calling something wrong when it is not *wrong*, is wrong.

You're applying a value judgment to the word "wrong". That's your doing, not Jimmy's.