61 réponses à ce sujet

[Ashevajak]

Agreed I never really understood DA Origin's systems until recently after I got the strategy guide. Thereby it made it diffic8ult to really understand the game and i couldn't complete it so ended up leaving he game in the end. Now that I understand the game and the mechanics of it. I now really quite enjoy the game more and have done a couple of successful playthroughs since then now i understand it more. Fortunately ME is  easier to master in that area but DA is definetely a nightmare at first especially as I'm not really an expreienced RPG player really. I only really got into DA through being a fan of ME and decidfing to give DA a go.

 

I'm a fairly experienced RPG player and even I struggled with DA:O's talents and tools.

 

It's a very old school approach that, hiding most of the mechanics behind a wall.  It can work really well, for some games (one of my favourite mods for Skyrim is Requiem, which uses this approach for its perk system, and it adds significantly to the overall atmosphere), but IMO Bioware games, especially focused as they are on team synergy and cooperation, are not best suited for it.

 

Not to mention, Bioware didn't even really adopt this approach when they were making old school RPGs (Baldur's Gate is very clear on how much damage spells do, for example), so I'm not so sure why they're enamoured of it of late.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Having a character fail should not be due to choices in their build, it should be due to the skill of the player. If I didn't talk my way out of situations with reasonable enemies, I would likely be killed quickly. If I didn't hold back and let other characters do my dirty work, id be dead. The challenge shouldn't be that the build is wrong, or sub-par or not up to the standards the game expects because of arbitrary numbers, the challenge should be I didn't fight my opponent correctly, and how do I work around it by playing to my strengths.

Why do you accept player skill in playing and not in building? What's the difference?

Second, I don't think player skill should ever matter. You build the character you want within the rules, and he might be effective, and he might not, but then he succeeds or fails based on his merits, not yours.

Building the character shouldn't require skill. It should just be an expression of the player's preferences for that character.

If you build the character the way you want to build it, and you play it the way you want to play it, then you win. That's the only standard of success that matters in a roleplaying game: Did you get to play your character the way you wanted?

I like suboptimal options partly because they are options, and I want options. But I also like them because I want the game world to be credible, and if the only skills available are the ones I can use to deal with this specific threat I face, then the game fails that test.

Gamist design is bad design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm a fairly experienced RPG player and even I struggled with DA:O's talents and tools.

It's a very old school approach that, hiding most of the mechanics behind a wall. It can work really well, for some games (one of my favourite mods for Skyrim is Requiem, which uses this approach for its perk system, and it adds significantly to the overall atmosphere), but IMO Bioware games, especially focused as they are on team synergy and cooperation, are not best suited for it.

Not to mention, Bioware didn't even really adopt this approach when they were making old school RPGs (Baldur's Gate is very clear on how much damage spells do, for example), so I'm not so sure why they're enamoured of it of late.

It's a terrible approach. Everything should be documented to a tabletop standard. We should have enough information that we could do the calculations manually.

[Golden_Persona]

I personally don't mind it if there are ways to hinder your build from poor planning, but nothing that outright condemns the player for making a certain choice. For example in ME3 I had armor which reduced my power cooldown by a great deal, and limited my weapons so I always had 150-200% cooldown bonus. My powers would cool down in less than 3 seconds without evolution buffs. Poor planning would then mean that any time I got the option between power cooldown or a damage buff or side effect when upgrading abilities I would choose the redundant cooldown buff. My power would then be faaar less effective. Proper planning would then mean I choose the damage buff or side effect.

 

I wouldn't be condemned for going for the redundant cooldown bonus, but my build would not be the best it could be. I personally don't mind that, but please no making the game unwinnable because I chose the cooldown bonus.

[Silcron]

If we're going to mention Dark Souls why not bring up why that game does? Make everything viable, even not leveling up. Sure, some things are better than others, like the broken sword being worse than a real dagger or some versions of spells being flat out better than other. The key thing is that you can beat the game with any build you want, even a non build (the naked guy who just punches things, without weapons or armor.)

 

While how effective you are in combat depends on your preferences (for example I'm not good with slow heavy weapons, but give me a bastard sword or a normal sword and I can beat just about anything in Dark Souls with a bit of effort), your armor, build, weapons...none of them make you automatically fail.

 

I think that is how it should be done. In ME for exmple I use on insanity the Blood Dragon armor on a soldier, and I bring squadmates for story reasons, and that's if I'm not doing my nonheavy weapons run, while I can't do that in ME3, in ME2 not even in the tutorial you are forced to use them. Am I shut down from beating the game? No, it just takes longer, or it's harder, but that's my choice to make, not for Bioware to decide that unless I bring the squadmates with the most efficient skills for the mission I should automatically loose for example.

[SpunkyMonkey]

This is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion, simply because why would Bioware do anything to put people off enjoying and buying the game?

Ease of access and sense of satisfaction go a long way to game enjoyment. To think a company who have spent the last few years trying to broaden their appeal by simplifying things would suddenly take this route is well wide of the mark IMO.

[Dabrikishaw]

Intentionally putting bad skills in the game to trap the player is bad design.

[Little Princess Peach]

Hopefully the interactions between the abilities will be somewhat more complex than that.

Look at Inquisition. Combining abilities in ways that are not explicitly documented (but become clear if you read about all the abilities) is vastly more effective that using those abilities in isolation.

Also, you're assuming that all players are always pursuing effectiveness as their primary character-design goal. That's not necessarily true. My cowardly Warden specifically avoided being effective.

here here all my pc's suck on purpose I let the team do most of the work besides if some characters have poor builds on purpose players wil Ignore them and wont use them anymore :/

[Sylvius the Mad]

Intentionally putting bad skills in the game to trap the player is bad design.

They don't need to be there to trap. They're just there to flesh out the ruleset and accommodate roleplaying.

Not all abilities and builds need to be equally useful.

[Hexi-decimal]

It's a terrible approach. Everything should be documented to a tabletop standard. We should have enough information that we could do the calculations manually.

Honestly, it should simply be a toggle option.  Like WoW for example.  You can choose to have very detailed tool tips or less detailed ones.  This way people who don't care so much about the specifics can just get into the game and play.  They may not be as "effective" as someone who more meticulously plans their builds but so what, they got what they want and I can get what I want (which is more meticulously laid out information about abilities).  

[FKA_Servo]

Honestly, it should simply be a toggle option.  Like WoW for example.  You can choose to have very detailed tool tips or less detailed ones.  This way people who don't care so much about the specifics can just get into the game and play.  They may not be as "effective" as someone who more meticulously plans their builds but so what, they got what they want and I can get what I want (which is more meticulously laid out information about abilities).  

 

Exhibit A for proper use of a toggle.

 

BSN, please take note.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Honestly, it should simply be a toggle option. Like WoW for example. You can choose to have very detailed tool tips or less detailed ones. This way people who don't care so much about the specifics can just get into the game and play. They may not be as "effective" as someone who more meticulously plans their builds but so what, they got what they want and I can get what I want (which is more meticulously laid out information about abilities).

I don't typically ask for toggles, but now that BioWare is committed to using a less moddable engine I might have to start.

In DAO, one of my favourite mods added detailed tooltips. I loved that I could easily see that Fireball did 30+0.3×spellpower damage.

[sjsharp2011]

I'm a fairly experienced RPG player and even I struggled with DA:O's talents and tools.

 

It's a very old school approach that, hiding most of the mechanics behind a wall.  It can work really well, for some games (one of my favourite mods for Skyrim is Requiem, which uses this approach for its perk system, and it adds significantly to the overall atmosphere), but IMO Bioware games, especially focused as they are on team synergy and cooperation, are not best suited for it.

 

Not to mention, Bioware didn't even really adopt this approach when they were making old school RPGs (Baldur's Gate is very clear on how much damage spells do, for example), so I'm not so sure why they're enamoured of it of late.

 

 

Yeahh I struggle3d with ME's at first too especially in the final fight with Saren at the end of ME1 when I first played it. But then at that time I had no RPG experience to draw on. Nowadays now that I know the system and how to upgrade my weapons and armour to achieve what I want I do much better. But in the case of ME1 it was easy enough for me to work it out for myself. So in a case of games like this it's a case of edciding on difficulty against what you want to or are trying to achieve within the game.

 

I think Bioware do a pretty good job with their RPG'ing optoins for the most part within the games but I can see why some people have a problem w3ith ME2's and 3's systems althoughI I have to admit 3 was definetely better in that area as you could customise a little moer your experience than with 2. But with th efact they'er going back to an ME1 style exploration theme for Andromeda perhaps it's a good way that they can build on this and give aus a fuller experience without an over complicated system but giving us a fun game like the more recent experiences

[pdusen]

That's what easier difficultiea are for.

And I have argued many timss before that roleplaying games aren't games. Lumping together with "video games" (incidentally, I remember when video games and computer games were seen as different types of things, and when that was true I always prefered computer games) does them a disservice.

 

I don't even know what to say to the idea that roleplaying games aren't games, so I won't even try.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't even know what to say to the idea that roleplaying games aren't games, so I won't even try.

Games have winning conditions. Roleplaying games don't.

The point of playing a roleplaying game is to play it - to roleplay.

[pdusen]

Games have winning conditions. Roleplaying games don't.

The point of playing a roleplaying game is to play it - to roleplay.

 

If your sole goal in a roleplaying game is just to play, I would argue that successfully roleplaying your character is the winning condition.

 

That aside, your character has micro-goals, and each of those obviously have winning conditions. I convinced that guy to give me his sword--I won that encounter. I killed that dragon--I won that encounter. I tried to steal from that noble, but he called the town guard on me and my character got hanged--I lost that encounter. By that measure, accomplishing what your character sets out to accomplish is the overall winning condition.

[dreamgazer]

Games have winning conditions. Roleplaying games don't.

The point of playing a roleplaying game is to play it - to roleplay.

I understand your general perspective, but even D&D modules have an end objective to conquer, which is typically something that cannot be done unless you optimize your abilities and stats to a degree. Is it still considered a game if there isn't an end objective or a series of objectives?

[Sylvius the Mad]

If your sole goal in a roleplaying game is just to play, I would argue that successfully roleplaying your character is the winning condition.

That aside, your character has micro-goals, and each of those obviously have winning conditions. I convinced that guy to give me his sword--I won that encounter. I killed that dragon--I won that encounter. I tried to steal from that noble, but he called the town guard on me and my character got hanged--I lost that encounter. By that measure, accomplishing what your character sets out to accomplish is the overall winning condition.

My character has goals. I don't. Playing my character well could well result in him failing to achieve his goals.

I'm not trying to make my character succeed. He is, but I'm not. I just want him to behave authentically given the personality I designed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I understand your general perspective, but even D&D modules have an end objective to conquer, which is typically something that cannot be done unless you optimize your abilities and stats to a degree. Is it still considered a game if there isn't an end objective or a series of objectives?

Roleplaying games aren't games. They're toys. Like a sandbox.

Chess is a game. A chessboard is a toy. That's the difference.

[pdusen]

My character has goals. I don't. Playing my character well could well result in him failing to achieve his goals.

I'm not trying to make my character succeed. He is, but I'm not. I just want him to behave authentically given the personality I designed.

 

That sounds like it matches my first suggesting for the winning condition. You're trying to make him behave authentically. If he does, you win.

 

Still not seeing where this isn't a game.

[LinksOcarina]

Why do you accept player skill in playing and not in building? What's the difference?

Second, I don't think player skill should ever matter. You build the character you want within the rules, and he might be effective, and he might not, but then he succeeds or fails based on his merits, not yours.

Building the character shouldn't require skill. It should just be an expression of the player's preferences for that character.

If you build the character the way you want to build it, and you play it the way you want to play it, then you win. That's the only standard of success that matters in a roleplaying game: Did you get to play your character the way you wanted?

I like suboptimal options partly because they are options, and I want options. But I also like them because I want the game world to be credible, and if the only skills available are the ones I can use to deal with this specific threat I face, then the game fails that test.

Gamist design is bad design.

 

I agree it takes no skill to make a character.

 

What you are describing is more or less what I am describing though, building the character you want to build should be the point. But if you are going to be punished by the system for building a character that doesn't fit within the paremeters of what the designers THINK you should build, then the possibility of having fun diminishes. The standard of success is not playing the character you want to play, such a thing is too narrow of a definition. 

 

The standard of success is how it plays. If you are in a game where a sub-optimal build is discouraged, you may not have fun in that game. Likewise if you are power gaming it and people get annoyed at you, including the GM.

 

And to be honest, what you describe as being positives is moreso gamist design; its part of that insider baseball of "I know these options are better than others, so let me take them because I want to be effective at this only." kind of attitude that is bred through such mechanics.  It is players pigeon-holing characters completely into a specific role, which doesn't really play as much as it did back in the 1980s.

 

Even games like Pathfinder now focus heavily on cross-classing and unconventional builds and feats to accommodate odd design choices; there's official rules for a fighter to be captian ****** america, using a shield as a boomerang now. 

 

That speaks volumes to me, honestly, about how open a game like Pathfinder can be about options, while simultaneously doing its damndest to balance them out. Not perfect (Summoner is fairly OP if you use it a certain way) but you see it in its design. It is not about how skills deal with specific threats that makes them balanced in any way, sub-optimal options exist for everyone depending on the type of character you build; my rakish rogue from before could have invested in stealth and lockpicking, but I chose not to because he is not that kind of rogue. 

 

It should be about how you use such skills and abilities effectively. Anything purposely sub-optimal though is a waste of time and energy.

[Matthias King]

I'm not sure what to say about this.

 

When I first played the first Mass Effect, I was brand new to RPGs. I'd never played one before. So when it came time to choose a class, I was lost. The game didn't do an even adequate job of conveying what the classes were about to someone who wasn't familiar with RPGs. So I chose soldier because that was the only one that was clearly defined in relatable terms that a new player could understand.

 

I've always been a shooter player and I got the soldier class. The rest of them may has well have been written in Greek because that's how much sense they made to me at the time. I understand them all well now of course, though I will say that even now, the first Mass Effect was a bit convoluted in its classes and the builds and the way abilities evolved.

 

As long as everything pertaining to classes and abilities in the next game is clear and well-defined I think they'll be ok.

 

The story will still more than likely be crap, but at least the gameplay will hopefully be solid and enjoyable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree it takes no skill to make a character.

What you are describing is more or less what I am describing though, building the character you want to build should be the point. But if you are going to be punished by the system for building a character that doesn't fit within the paremeters of what the designers THINK you should build, then the possibility of having fun diminishes. The standard of success is not playing the character you want to play, such a thing is too narrow of a definition.

The standard of success is how it plays. If you are in a game where a sub-optimal build is discouraged, you may not have fun in that game. Likewise if you are power gaming it and people get annoyed at you, including the GM.

And to be honest, what you describe as being positives is moreso gamist design; its part of that insider baseball of "I know these options are better than others, so let me take them because I want to be effective at this only." kind of attitude that is bred through such mechanics. It is players pigeon-holing characters completely into a specific role, which doesn't really play as much as it did back in the 1980s.

Even games like Pathfinder now focus heavily on cross-classing and unconventional builds and feats to accommodate odd design choices; there's official rules for a fighter to be captian ****** america, using a shield as a boomerang now.

That speaks volumes to me, honestly, about how open a game like Pathfinder can be about options, while simultaneously doing its damndest to balance them out. Not perfect (Summoner is fairly OP if you use it a certain way) but you see it in its design. It is not about how skills deal with specific threats that makes them balanced in any way, sub-optimal options exist for everyone depending on the type of character you build; my rakish rogue from before could have invested in stealth and lockpicking, but I chose not to because he is not that kind of rogue.

It should be about how you use such skills and abilities effectively. Anything purposely sub-optimal though is a waste of time and energy.

I don't think abilities should be intentionally suboptimal. I just want them to be interesting, and I don't think balancing them all perfectly is particularly important.

I generally prefer classless systems because they give the llayer tremendous power to build the character he wants. I'd like to be able have a character concept in mind before I ever see the rules, and reading the rules is required only to find out how to build what I want - not to find out what I can build.

There should be no combination of abilities that is impossible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds like it matches my first suggesting for the winning condition. You're trying to make him behave authentically. If he does, you win.

Still not seeing where this isn't a game.

The standards themselves will differ from player to player. In a game, everyone follows the same rules and faces similar winning conditions. But exactly what constitutes authentic roleplaying is determined by each player.

Also, you never finish. The game isn't ever over. At some point, you just stop.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't think abilities should be intentionally suboptimal. I just want them to be interesting, and I don't think balancing them all perfectly is particularly important.

I generally prefer classless systems because they give the llayer tremendous power to build the character he wants. I'd like to be able have a character concept in mind before I ever see the rules, and reading the rules is required only to find out how to build what I want - not to find out what I can build.

There should be no combination of abilities that is impossible.

 

I agree with you there too.

 

The issue is again when it is intentional, which is poor design in a nutshell and leads to tryhards pushing for full on optimization.