583 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Sylvius, I would pay good money to have seen that. Mind giving a brief play by play? 

[o Ventus]

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

I wasn't even replying to Jimmy when I posted that, but alright.Also, "value judgment" doesn't mean much when you don't clarify what that is. When I used "wrong" in the context of playing a video game, I'm using it's common dictionary meaning (i.e. incorrect or inaccurate). It's impossible to play a game *wrong* unless you are knowingly cheating (because at that point you aren't even playing the game anymore). It can be played well or it can be played poorly. It can be played sub-optimally or it can be min/maxed and wholly, thoroughly completed, but it cannot be played *wrong*.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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 the intended use of the game's features matters. Their function matters, regardless of underlying intent.

I paused to aim nearly every shot I took in ME2. I doubt that was intended by the developers, but thag didn't stop it from being a brilliant feature (one that was implicitly encouraged by the wrong-headed introduction of an ammo mechanics).

Similarly, I used VATS for every shot in Fallout 3, even though the design of NV suggests that the playstyle wasn't intended. Obsidian even said that the overuse of VATS made the gane too easy, so they limited Action Points to fix it (I modded that out).

Regardless of how often we're expected to use the Tac Cam in DAI, I use it all the time, because I enjoy the game more that way. It's not about difficulty, it's about gameplay preferences. The use of a tactical camera clearly wasn't intended in DA2, because there wasn't one, but the game was badly served by that absence.

If we tell BioWare that we don't like the game not being designed around some specific features; they can defuse that complaint by no longer including those features.

I think we should emphasize that we like those features, and then BioWare can work out how to make playing with them a better experience.

If BioWare starts making the action aspects of these games mandatory (something they haven't done since Jade Empire), I'm going to stop playing them.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think the intended use of the game's features matters. Their function matters, regardless of underlying intent.

Yet their function is what is the problem. Bioware intended for the Tac cam to allow for parity between the either a party management system or an action game. That was their intent. The function was the outcome - a camera system that was limited and an AI system to often disobeyed the player's commands. That's not functionally a good system to play tactically.

Regardless of how often we're expected to use the Tac Cam in DAI, I use it all the time, because I enjoy the game more that way. It's not about difficulty, it's about gameplay preferences. The use of a tactical camera clearly wasn't intended in DA2, because there wasn't one, but the game was badly served by that absence.

Eh. I don't think preferences really come into play. It's about design execution. Encounters are scripted to never require using the tac cam, so it was never tested or put through the paces enough to realize that basic concepts of an overhead camera, like AI that doesn't ignore commands or get blocked by the room ceiling.

It's not a matter of difficulty, but really a matter of integrating said feature into the system. If you never require your player to use a feature, then it becomes more like an ancillary feature instead of a core feature of the gameplay.

If we tell BioWare that we don't like the game not being designed around some specific features; they can defuse that complaint by no longer including those features.

I think we should emphasize that we like those features, and then BioWare can work out how to make playing with them a better experience.

If BioWare starts making the action aspects of these games mandatory (something they haven't done since Jade Empire), I'm going to stop playing them.

I feel like such feedback is illusory. Example...

DA:O had a highly lauded tactical system, leveraged by its camera. DA2 removed this, to the lament of many. After hearing this feedback, they replied by implementing a camera system which, on paper, sounded like the same feature in a way that could make everyone happy. But the result was not what they or their fans imagined it would be.

Requesting the right features mean nothing if the team implementing them doesn't have the drive to make that feature themselves. It's just a request to fulfill, not a vision they have that they are actively working towards and can tell by their own measurement if it accomplishes the task they have for it. Repeatedly asking, even repeatedly explaining in great detail why said feature works, does nothing to guarantee the feature will be implemented in a way that will be sufficient. And with lag times in development between fan feedback and the next product iteration being measure in multiple years, the chances of working towards piecemeal is mind-numbingly large.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wasn't even replying to Jimmy when I posted that, but alright.Also, "value judgment" doesn't mean much when you don't clarify what that is. When I used "wrong" in the context of playing a video game, I'm using it's common dictionary meaning (i.e. incorrect or inaccurate). It's impossible to play a game *wrong* unless you are knowingly cheating (because at that point you aren't even playing the game anymore). It can be played well or it can be played poorly. It can be played sub-optimally or it can be min/maxed and wholly, thoroughly completed, but it cannot be played *wrong*.

I actually agree with you that there's no wrong way to play the game (I don’t even exclude exploits or mods).

I just didn't think your objection was particularly compelling.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh. I don't think preferences really come into play. It's about design execution. Encounters are scripted to never require using the tac cam, so it was never tested or put through the paces enough to realize that basic concepts of an overhead camera, like AI that doesn't ignore commands or get blocked by the room ceiling.

It's not a matter of difficulty, but really a matter of integrating said feature into the system. If you never require your player to use a feature, then it becomes more like an ancillary feature instead of a core feature of the gameplay.

I'd rather have it be ancillary than not have it at all, and I think losing it completely is a real risk. That they tested DAI's combat primarily using DAMP makes it very clear that full-party tactical control wasn't a priority, so I'm very happy to have the limited tactical control we do have.

The lack of meaningful full-party control is a serious problem with the game. The AI and pathfinding are largely incompatible with the level-design. Now, I like the level-design, so I'd like improvement in the other things, but I don't want them to throw out the elevation changes in order to achieve it.

But the specific camera issues you mention seem to me to be small problems that would require huge changes to the game in order to address them. Moreover, the fixes they've added so far to increase the camera zoom are incompatible with another feature I really like (the low-angle free-roaming camera). Honestly, the free-roaming camera that was in the game at release did nearly everything I wanted a camera to do, and the things I actually think are wrong with it (looking up) have yet to be addressed.

No, the camera itself I don't mind at all. The inability to give orders to party members while having any reasonable expectation that they will be followed is a disaster, however.

I just think the camera gets a bad rap. I really like the camera. It's mostly the camera I wanted (and better than the previous DA cameras, I think).

What I would like is characters that follow instructions like DAO companions did, combined with a DA2-style programmable Tactics system.

[Lee T]

My only problem with the camera so far is it's inability to "jump" edges.

What I would like is characters that follow instructions like DAO companions did, combined with a DA2-style programmable Tactics system.

This is what I expected to be in the game, I really wish it was there.

[BlacJAC74]

Something that I have never understood nor never will is why people persevere playing a game that if their written word is to be believed, is neither fun nor interesting.  Why would anyone waste their gaming time playing something that's obviously a chore for them?  There's enough dull things that we need to do in life without wasting time doing another completely unnecessary one.

 

To me, this says more about the person playing the game than it does about the game itself.   I've played many a game that I've found dull as dishwater, but i've always easily rectified it by selling it/shelving it/binning it when it's obvious I'm not gonna change my mind about it, no matter how long I endure it for.

[Lebanese Dude]

Something that I have never understood nor never will is why people persevere playing a game that if their written word is to be believed, is neither fun nor interesting.  Why would anyone waste their gaming time playing something that's obviously a chore for them?  There's enough dull things that we need to do in life without wasting time doing another completely unnecessary one.

 

To me, this says more about the person playing the game than it does about the game itself.   I've played many a game that I've found dull as dishwater, but i've always easily rectified it by selling it/shelving it/binning it when it's obvious I'm not gonna change my mind about it, no matter how long I endure it for.

 

 

 

Logic ---->   <---- QQ bots

[Medhia_Nox]

@BlacJAC74:  The Cult of the Rose Colored Glasses will probably tell you they're defending "true roleplaying" by screaming in hyperbolic statements on a message board because they know Truth about roleplaying.

[BlacJAC74]

@BlacJAC74:  The Cult of the Rose Colored Glasses will probably tell you they're defending "true roleplaying" by screaming in hyperbolic statements on a message board because they know Truth about roleplaying.

 

I agree. I suspect the OP actually enjoys the game, but needed to vent because it's the done thing.  I can't think of any other reason why s/he would keep persevering.

 

It's like the "No Mutants Allowed" anti-fallout 3 brigade.   They all loathe the game, something they all decided well before the game was even released, yet most know more about it than I do, and I've ploughed many an hour into that game too.

[Teddie Sage]

It is to me. Like any JRPG is an RPG to me. I'm not difficult.

[In Exile]

If I was a game developer, I'd be tempted to have good and evil options in my games, where the good choices end in rainbows and sunshine and the evil choices end in death and bitter tears. And then create sequels where a canon is set for the events of the previous game... and always use the evil choices.

As long as you use a new protagonist each time it kind of works.

[Cyonan]

I agree. I suspect the OP actually enjoys the game, but needed to vent because it's the done thing.  I can't think of any other reason why s/he would keep persevering.

 

It's like the "No Mutants Allowed" anti-fallout 3 brigade.   They all loathe the game, something they all decided well before the game was even released, yet most know more about it than I do, and I've ploughed many an hour into that game too.

 

I think in some cases, people play through to see if it gets better later on. Although I also think you lose all claim to that excuse when you're sitting at 100+ hours.

 

I would say I have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with Fallout 3, but I'm afraid somebody will show up with a wall that would make China jealous explaining exactly that.

[o Ventus]

I think in some cases, people play through to see if it gets better later on. Although I also think you lose all claim to that excuse when you're sitting at 100+ hours.

 

I would say I have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with Fallout 3, but I'm afraid somebody will show up with a wall that would make China jealous explaining exactly that.

Doesn't Fallout 3 use GFWL on the PC? If that's the case, then that would be an issue right there. GFWL sucks. Or, it used to suck. I think GFWL was taken down or was changed, last I heard, I avoided GFWL when I heard bad things about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

As long as you use a new protagonist each time it kind of works.

I don't know... sequels for years assumed you used the "good choice" protagonist when carrying over games. I don't know why this is a given.

[Il Divo]

I don't know... sequels for years assumed you used the "good choice" protagonist when carrying over games. I don't know why this is a given.

 

I think it was a precedent set by KotOR (maybe earlier). They want all their choices to reflect the "Luke Skywalker" approach, of choosing good or evil. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I think it was a precedent set by KotOR (maybe earlier). They want all their choices to reflect the "Luke Skywalker" approach, of choosing good or evil.

Which is a shame... because the world is usually infinitely more interesting with some of the Svil Ending choices in games.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

Agree with this, two days late. ME2 was a well-executed game, but it was not a well designed one. It sacrificed many of the RPG ideals ME1 brought to the table, even if it did so in a package that was genuinely well received.

Nearly everything wrong with ME3 can be traced back to poor design decisions made in ME2. They just did a much more terrible job at covering them up in ME3.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd rather have it be ancillary than not have it at all, and I think losing it completely is a real risk. That they tested DAI's combat primarily using DAMP makes it very clear that full-party tactical control wasn't a priority, so I'm very happy to have the limited tactical control we do have.

I'm of the opposite mindset. This isn't kindegarten - I'm not awarding gold stars for effort. But results.

The lack of meaningful full-party control is a serious problem with the game. The AI and pathfinding are largely incompatible with the level-design. Now, I like the level-design, so I'd like improvement in the other things, but I don't want them to throw out the elevation changes in order to achieve it.

But the specific camera issues you mention seem to me to be small problems that would require huge changes to the game in order to address them. Moreover, the fixes they've added so far to increase the camera zoom are incompatible with another feature I really like (the low-angle free-roaming camera). Honestly, the free-roaming camera that was in the game at release did nearly everything I wanted a camera to do, and the things I actually think are wrong with it (looking up) have yet to be addressed.

No, the camera itself I don't mind at all. The inability to give orders to party members while having any reasonable expectation that they will be followed is a disaster, however.

I agree. This is the camera issue that drives me the most up a wall - and which, to me, cements the feature as one not even considered part of the core gameplay. That, to me, shows that they did not even dig deep enough into the system to think "well, heck, maybe someone will tell a unit to move somewhere and ACTUALLY WANTS THE UNIT TO DO IT!" Playing the entire game in Tac Cam mode just to have commands listened to is, to me, the very epitome of a poorly integrated feature.

I just think the camera gets a bad rap. I really like the camera. It's mostly the camera I wanted (and better than the previous DA cameras, I think).

What I would like is characters that follow instructions like DAO companions did, combined with a DA2-style programmable Tactics system.

I agree. As a camera, the Tac camera is pretty serviceable. I can see how it got through QA with people saying "yep, it allows zooming, pausing, movement across the battlefield, tracking unirs, issuing commands... it checks every box we have! It's good to go." Yet it's success not as a camera, but as a tool to engage in the combat gameplay, is where it fails.

And since that was the entire point of the tactical camera, then the camera itself fails. It's like a car that can go 0 to 60 in four seconds, but doesn't have a steering wheel - it's an engineering success but worthless for what you would use a car for.

[AlanC9]

As a camera, the Tac camera is pretty serviceable. I can see how it got through QA with people saying "yep, it allows zooming, pausing, movement across the battlefield, tracking unirs, issuing commands... it checks every box we have! It's good to go." Yet it's success not as a camera, but as a tool to engage in the combat gameplay, is where it fails.
And since that was the entire point of the tactical camera, then the camera itself fails. It's like a car that can go 0 to 60 in four seconds, but doesn't have a steering wheel - it's an engineering success but worthless for what you would use a car for.

The problem with the whole debate here is that "camera" is used to mean the mode, rather than the camera part of that mode. Understandable confusion given the name of the mode, but unless someone's willing to get down into the details it's hard to tell what the actual issues are.

[AlanC9]

I think it was a precedent set by KotOR (maybe earlier). They want all their choices to reflect the "Luke Skywalker" approach, of choosing good or evil.

I'd say Ultima, but those games aren't winnable on an evil path at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem with the whole debate here is that "camera" is used to mean the mode, rather than the camera part of that mode. Understandable confusion given the name of the mode, but unless someone's willing to get down into the details it's hard to tell what the actual issues are.

Agreed. The Devil is the the details.


Which is an odd phrase, really. I don't want to run into the devil by talking about something in-depth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem with the whole debate here is that "camera" is used to mean the mode, rather than the camera part of that mode. Understandable confusion given the name of the mode, but unless someone's willing to get down into the details it's hard to tell what the actual issues are.

But the major issues exist in both camera modes. Regardless of camera, characters don't follow orders.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Fast Jimmy:  And yet you think something is more in-depth if there's a little evil in it.