106 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Frankly, I don't even understand why you think this is a requirement. I'm having a hard time recalling even a single game that has ever done what you're asking for.

D&D-based games have done it.

[pdusen]

D&D-based games have done it.

Given that they are based on an actual published ruleset, that really isn't the same thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You'll never see that because someone needs to take the time to write it, then other people need to review it to make sure its correct, and then it could be moot anyway because changes can be happening all the way up until release, meaning what they write may never be fully accurate.

The combat designers have documentation somewhere.

Also, I think what you describe is the wrong way to build a game. They should design the rules first, and then build the game around them. Otherwise, the rules end up being an incoherent mess.

Also, how are we supposed to play the game without knowing the rules?

Frankly, I don't even understand why you think this is a requirement. I'm having a hard time recalling even a single game that has ever done what you're asking for.

Most of the time, you had to buy the game to get the manual, but all of that detail was in the manual.

Games built on pre-existing rulesets obviously have a big advantage here, because those rules are already written.

[Broganisity]

I just want to see the mechanics.  How does the game world work?  Release a highly detailed manual, in advance, with all the game's math in it.  Let us plan character builds and party composition.

 

(Words words words)

aaaand we're at odds again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

aaaand we're at odds again.

Building characters is the best part of these games, if the mechanics are sufficiently well documented.

If not, then it becomes guesswork, and it's not fun anymore.

[SolNebula]

Tbh I still want to know the composition of my squad. It's like seeing the cast of actors for one film.

[Enigmatick]

Good point.

Alright, let's pretend that they'd keep making the games, or at least Fallout 3. How do you think it'd look?

Probably a lot more linear? I doubt they would have made it an open world game at that time.

[Ahriman]

However, Bethesda has decided to take a different approach and to not talk about the story AT ALL in marketing and just leave everything as a surprise for us to experience come November.

Kek, if they were serious about it - they've failed miserably. People already know large chunk of plot, Bethesda manage to leak plot details even through toy descriptions.

[Vol_Tang_Clan]

Because even with it's problems, Fallout 3 had a better plot than Inquisition.

 

Looks like my brother Pitne's been selling these earth clan more red sand.

[Equalitas]

I only want to know gameplay and HOW the story is going to be delivered. And new features just like Bethesda. And when they show gameplay dont show with companions. Learned my lesson with Dragon Age Inquisition when they didnt deliver on what i was hoping for.

[pdusen]

The combat designers have documentation somewhere.
Also, I think what you describe is the wrong way to build a game. They should design the rules first, and then build the game around them.

Nope. Not even tabletops are designed the way you're suggesting. You come up with some rules, build the game, have some testers play it, gather feedback, change the rules, build the changes, have some testers play it, gather feedback, change the rules again, and continue in this fashion until there is no time left and you must release. All games are made this way.

Otherwise, the rules end up being an incoherent mess.

Actually, one of the reasons that changes are made can be to make the rules easier to understand. That's particularly important in tabletop games. However, that's really not as important in a video game, since the onus is not on the player to do any math.

Also, how are we supposed to play the game without knowing the rules?

By playing the game.

[Enigmatick]

When even I agree with Babypuncher, something is wrong. It's so "heroic", it sickens even him... the posterboy of heroism.

'heroism' or not, Fallout 3's plot is still far worse.

[Sanunes]

The problem is how good a story will or how much of what is released is based purely on how an individual looks at it, which is why I don't think developers like talking about it too much regardless of game especially since things can also be taken completely out of context without key elements being revealed.  Personal expectations are a tricky thing.

 

I personally will say the storyline that disappointed me the most out of recent years was the one from BioShock: Infinite because people didn't seem to have the same expectations I did.  When the game decides to break its core premise because they needed to figure out and rush an ending it really hurt my enjoyment (of course other story pacing issues didn't help my enjoyment either).

[Enigmatick]

It's barely anything.

 

That alone makes better. Better the lack of a dogturd (and much else), than the stink of dogturd pervading throughout.

No, it's something. There's a lot of it, and it's blisteringly stupid.

[Jester]

You're a joke of man sometimes, David.

 

I'm not going to derail but jesus christ Fallout 3 having DAO tier writing is an almost objectively terrible opinion

I cried. Tears born of hysterical laughter were shed.

It's on you.

 

Or on whoever wrote this masterpiece. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nope. Not even tabletops are designed the way you're suggesting. You come up with some rules, build the game, have some testers play it, gather feedback, change the rules, build the changes, have some testers play it, gather feedback, change the rules again, and continue in this fashion until there is no time left and you must release. All games are made this way.

That's how the rules are made. The worlds and adventures come later. The rules are first.

Actually, one of the reasons that changes are made can be to make the rules easier to understand. That's particularly important in tabletop games. However, that's really not as important in a video game, since the onus is not on the player to do any math.

But it should still be possible for us to do so. But show me a modern CRPG where we're even allowed to see the math, let alone given enough information to do it ourselves.

By playing the game.

It's too late, then. If I'm planning a character without knowing the rules of the world in which that character lives, I'm just guessing.

Moreover, extrapolating the game's rules from the limited combat feedback can be incredibly tedious. How many controlled tests do we need to run to determine exactly what the bounds on a RNG are, or how (or if) multipliers stack? And while we're doing this, we're not playing the game. We're compiling metagame data, while also spoiling in-game evebts for ourselves. We're forced to see a bunch of the game before we're allowed to have the information we need to start over and create the character we want.

That's a terrible design.

They need to document the game's mechanics fully, and all of that documentation needs to be available prior to character creation.

[Enigmatick]

That's how the rules are made. The worlds and adventures come later. The rules are first.
But it should still be possible for us to do so. But show me a modern CRPG where we're even allowed to see the math, let alone given enough information to do it ourselves.
It's too late, then. If I'm planning a character without knowing the rules of the world in which that character lives, I'm just guessing.

Moreover, extrapolating the game's rules from the limited combat feedback can be incredibly tedious. How many controlled tests do we need to run to determine exactly what the bounds on a RNG are, or how (or if) multipliers stack? And while we're doing this, we're not playing the game. We're compiling metagame data, while also spoiling in-game evebts for ourselves. We're forced to see a bunch of the game before we're allowed to have the information we need to start over and create the character we want.

That's a terrible design.

They need to document the game's mechanics fully, and all of that documentation needs to be available prior to character creation.

They still haven't done this for DAI? I thought you met a dev and he said it was going to be out there.

[RoboticWater]

It's too late, then. If I'm planning a character without knowing the rules of the world in which that character lives, I'm just guessing.

Moreover, extrapolating the game's rules from the limited combat feedback can be incredibly tedious. How many controlled tests do we need to run to determine exactly what the bounds on a RNG are, or how (or if) multipliers stack? And while we're doing this, we're not playing the game. We're compiling metagame data, while also spoiling in-game evebts for ourselves. We're forced to see a bunch of the game before we're allowed to have the information we need to start over and create the character we want.

That's a terrible design.

They need to document the game's mechanics fully, and all of that documentation needs to be available prior to character creation.

You need to play Dark Souls. 

 

You're not "compiling metagame data," you're learning. You trial and error your way to the best strategies as the game is happening. That's what "playing a game," means. Besides, by the time you reach the "point of no return" with your abilities, many RPGs offer some respec option.

 

I shouldn't need pamphlets to understand the best way to play a game; that's terrible design. Show, don't tell or in the case of games; do, don't show. Sure, let us play around with the character classes a bit before forcing us choose one, but the idea that written rules are fundamentally necessary to a game is absurd.

[Jester]

I shouldn't need pamphlets to understand the best way to play a game; that's terrible design. Show, don't tell or in the case of games; do, don't show. Sure, let us play around with the character classes a bit before forcing us choose one, but the idea that written rules are fundamentally necessary to a game is absurd.

That's why AD&D system (used in old Infinity Games, like Baldur's Gate 1&2, Icewind Dale 1, Planescape: Torment) was dropped.

You literally needed a manual to figure out what stat bonuses you received (because the increase int stats was not linearly dependent on attribute increase - it had a really weird function), how many spells you will get at certain levels with given attributes, what your attack bonus will be, etc.

 

Not to mention completely counter-intuitive designs, like the concept of THAC0, negative armor class, weird experience and level progression etc.

 

Now game systems are built to be much simpler (in a good way), so instruction manuals are not that necessary. 

 

On the other hand, I find Dark Souls progression systems to be very simple - even oversimplified.

Character progression there is limited to stat progression (with stats giving linearly increasing bonuses at first, then it becomes logarythmic AFAIK, and souls needed for next level increase exponentially) and weapon progression (with weapons improving 10% of base value with each upgrade).

And it has souls as the only resource.

Apart of that you have different types of spells, that have attribute requirements (like weapons do). 

 

No instruction manual is necessary for Dark Souls. The learining and restarts happen because you learn about level design and enemy spawn points and attack patterns - not game mechanics. 

[Monica21]

Bethesda games have story content?

[RoboticWater]

Bethesda games have story content?

Precisely the reason why they can afford to keep it a secret.