25 réponses à ce sujet

[animedreamer]

This thread was inspired by another thread elsewhere, where I found myself arguing the value of player choice in all aspects when it comes to video game RPGs. To the point of the argument, my stance was that a game that already has a set narrative is for all intensive purposes already out of the player's hand, this is the one universal truth no level of response choices will ever change, whereas in a PnP game where you go and what you do has a unlimited number of choices. So in what do players really have the most choice/control? In my opinion it's character creation.

 

Which brings me to my point, Why Limit it? I'm writing this in hopes that someone where will pass on the message, or maybe rouse my fellow gamers and fans of RPGs and BioWare ones more so, that they can loosen the vice grip on their RPGs. They don't have to remove almost every mechanical choice a player might tinker with in order to make an accessible game.

 

In Dragon Age Origins you had several important choices to make, Sex, Race, Class, & Background. All of which affected your adventure on some level and it is that last feature that really made DAO stand out when it came to CC, I can't think of any other RPG that I've ever played where I had the choice of picking a background and it shaping so much of who my character was and how the world saw them. Mass Effect kind of did something similar but you were still always the same person.

 

I'll try to make the rest of this shorter..

 

If ever there is another Dragon Age I would hope they try to use the following.

 

Skills (abilities that are used outside of combat, or that effect combat in indirect ways)

 

Talents (What we consider abilities in the more recent games)

 

Less Passive Talents (If you come up with a idea that would improve a skill, then just add it to the skill and create a new skill to take up a space on the skill tree)

 

More Spells: (When I pick mage, I don't expect to see the same number of usable spells as they fighter has skills. I expect to see as many spells as can be imagined for things a fighter or rogue just can't do. Sleep, Creation, Summoning, just anything you could imagine, in all honest i'd say at least 3x as many spell options than what a fighter or rogue might have in theirs respective skill trees. Also with magic it's the one exception where you expect to see a higher level version of a lower level skill and thus take up a slot.)

 

Stat/Ability Score Management: (It's one of the most core functions in a RPG to me that makes a character feel as if I'm controlling their growth as a combatant, story wise i have little say, but when it comes to whether or not i can dodge a blow or have tons of health, I like knowing it's for me to decide because im putting points into that area of the character.)

 

Backgrounds: (Maybe just more options as to where my elf came from, is he or she a dalish elf? or a city elf? If a mage were they Circle trained or Dalish trained? If human was I a noble, a savage, a peasant or if a mage circle or hedge mage?)

 

Im going to stop here and get some feedback if any.

[thats1evildude]

We had a skill system in DAI. You could unlock Knowledge Perks through the War table that opened up unique operations and unique dialogue options. Perks allowed you to get discounts at merchants, to pick up extra herbs, to access better Focus abilities and to open up your inventory. Some of the Perks were useless, notably the horse riding Perks, but on the whole it was a decent system.

The skills system in DAO was complete crap, and I don't understand why people look on it fondly. It didn't "enhance" roleplaying, it was just bad.

If you were playing the game efficiently, you took Coercion as fast as possible. You only needed one party member to max out Herbalism, Traps and Poison to craft the best stuff, and you only needed one rank to use the stuff another party member crafted. Survival and Tactics were a joke. Stealing was the one skill that opened up a set of quests, but it was completely useless for anyone that wasn't a rogue.

And that's not getting into the absolute goddamn nightmare that was Rune-crafting in Awakening. I still wake up in cold sweats after dreaming that I was one rune short of a Grandmaster Rune with no more room in my inventory.

[actionhero112]

There are limits in this game because the devs had limits when designing the game. They only had so many resources.

 

In regards to your complaint about skills, inquisition perks largely took the place of them.

 

Passive Talents are awesome, the alternative is sustains and sustains suck in terms of combat design. (They make combat less active through decreasing your available mana/stamina)

 

In regards to your mage complaint, why in a realm of magic, can't my warrior or rogue be just as ridiculous as mages? Is it somehow more logical that someone can conjure firestorms, but my warrior doesn't know an ancient technique to split the ground open? 

 

Stat Management was largely linear. There was a right way to build characters, and there was a wrong, innefective way to build characters. It's been streamlined into crafting and added to passives. While I agree that it makes me feel better when I have input in this area, it honestly really doesn't make a difference. 

[htisscrimbliv]

If you were playing the game efficiently, you took Coercion as fast as possible. You only needed one party member to max out Herbalism, Traps and Poison to craft the best stuff, and you only needed one rank to use the stuff another party member crafted. Survival and Tactics were a joke.

on consoles, grabbing the tactics for mages was actually pretty necessary

[Daerog]

No such thing as unlimited number of choices, there are boundaries in everything. There may be infinite number of choices by saying that a spirit moved an inch, or half an inch, or a quarter of an inch, or an eighth of an inch, etc., but there is still a boundary in playing a PnP game, such as sticking with the setting, theme, or speaking a language that the GM can understand in order to continue playing.

 

Stats and all that are fun, and I would like a game that goes with that, but that is asking for more bug tests on things that most people probably won't use. This is why PnP is always a great alternative to computer RPGs.

 

I would like to see BW change/alter the character system as they have done in each DA game so far, and to not stick with a single system in every game. A change here and there in every game would be fun, and then bring back old stuff along with newer stuff in one game and then change it again in another.

[thats1evildude]

on consoles, grabbing the tactics for mages was actually pretty necessary

Sez you. I maxed out Morrigan in Herbalism and did fine.

[BabyPuncher]

Jesus Christ...

 

Do you have an understanding of a little concept called 'finite resources'?

[thats1evildude]

In regards to your mage complaint, why in a realm of magic, can't my warrior or rogue be just as ridiculous as mages? Is it somehow more logical that someone can conjure firestorms, but my warrior doesn't know an ancient technique to split the ground?

It's the Guy at the Gym Fallacy.

http://www.giantitp....the-Gym-Fallacy

To sum up: if a character is doing things that we can do (swing a sword, fire a bow, etc.), people think they shouldn't be able to do things we can't do (split the ground, leap massive distances, etc.)

This fallacy ignores that these characters already regularly do things we can't. I cannot be shot with an arrow without requiring hospitalization, but my character is regularly peppered with arrows. (Or set on fire, or struck by boulders, or a host of other injuries.) They carry massive loads of equipment without being encumbered. And they never show signs of being weary after a massive battle. Hell, at the battle of the Arbor Wilds, Cullen fights for like three days straight.

[BSpud]

for all intensive purposes

 

 

 

What

[caradoc2000]

I cannot be shot with an arrow without requiring hospitalization, but my character is regularly peppered with arrows.

Truly, an arrow to the knee is no laughing matter.

[ArianaGBSA]

This thread was inspired by another thread elsewhere, where I found myself arguing the value of player choice in all aspects when it comes to video game RPGs. To the point of the argument, my stance was that a game that already has a set narrative is for all intensive purposes already out of the player's hand, this is the one universal truth no level of response choices will ever change, whereas in a PnP game where you go and what you do has a unlimited number of choices. So in what do players really have the most choice/control? In my opinion it's character creation.

 

Which brings me to my point, Why Limit it? I'm writing this in hopes that someone where will pass on the message, or maybe rouse my fellow gamers and fans of RPGs and BioWare ones more so, that they can loosen the vice grip on their RPGs. They don't have to remove almost every mechanical choice a player might tinker with in order to make an accessible game.

 

In Dragon Age Origins you had several important choices to make, Sex, Race, Class, & Background. All of which affected your adventure on some level and it is that last feature that really made DAO stand out when it came to CC, I can't think of any other RPG that I've ever played where I had the choice of picking a background and it shaping so much of who my character was and how the world saw them. Mass Effect kind of did something similar but you were still always the same person.

 

I'll try to make the rest of this shorter..

 

If ever there is another Dragon Age I would hope they try to use the following.

 

Skills (abilities that are used outside of combat, or that effect combat in indirect ways)

 

Talents (What we consider abilities in the more recent games)

 

Less Passive Talents (If you come up with a idea that would improve a skill, then just add it to the skill and create a new skill to take up a space on the skill tree)

 

More Spells: (When I pick mage, I don't expect to see the same number of usable spells as they fighter has skills. I expect to see as many spells as can be imagined for things a fighter or rogue just can't do. Sleep, Creation, Summoning, just anything you could imagine, in all honest i'd say at least 3x as many spell options than what a fighter or rogue might have in theirs respective skill trees. Also with magic it's the one exception where you expect to see a higher level version of a lower level skill and thus take up a slot.)

 

Stat/Ability Score Management: (It's one of the most core functions in a RPG to me that makes a character feel as if I'm controlling their growth as a combatant, story wise i have little say, but when it comes to whether or not i can dodge a blow or have tons of health, I like knowing it's for me to decide because im putting points into that area of the character.)

 

Backgrounds: (Maybe just more options as to where my elf came from, is he or she a dalish elf? or a city elf? If a mage were they Circle trained or Dalish trained? If human was I a noble, a savage, a peasant or if a mage circle or hedge mage?)

 

Im going to stop here and get some feedback if any.

Because now EA forces Bioware to make games for people without brains that can barely finish the game on casual with tutorials, auto level and youtube guides. I see people with some questions in these forums that made me understand why Bioware went dumb. Some VERY obvious things are considered "secrets" by lots of players. Or basic builds and equipment are "amazing". So yeah, I doubt we will ever see a game where people need to use more "human central processor unit" to play. Everything is "too complicated", "too complex", and people want simple. Hit corypheus, kiss cassandra, find "hidden" nug king. It is so boring it makes me sleep just by talking about it, but yeah "Hidden" treasures, "godly" items, and so on... at least for this Skyrim generation (AS SAID BY BIOWARE OK? THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO PLEASE BRAINDEAD PEOPLE WHO PLAY SKYRIM)

[Morroian]

I would like to see BW change/alter the character system as they have done in each DA game so far, and to not stick with a single system in every game. A change here and there in every game would be fun, and then bring back old stuff along with newer stuff in one game and then change it again in another.

 

I don't mind changes so long as they keep giving the player plenty of choices, which they didn't do in DAI. There were restrictions: in the 8 ability limit, in the reduction in base abilities, in companions not having unique specs, and in the lack of control over stat allocation. They could have mitigated some of this at least by offering more specs or more classes. 

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

 I found myself arguing the value of player choice in all aspects when it comes to video game RPGs. To the point of the argument, my stance was that a game that already has a set narrative is for all intensive purposes already out of the player's hand, this is the one universal truth no level of response choices will ever change, whereas in a PnP game where you go and what you do has a unlimited number of choices.

 

The problem with the Inquisitor is the non-sensical void of personality based choices. The biggest offender is that we have no options to attempt entering the black city ourselves despite holding the key literally IN our hands

 

Also:

Want your Inquisitor to support slavery? Can't - you will be against it or neutral at best in the few conversations it is mentioned.
Want to support Tevinter ideology? Same as above.
 

There are too many points I could make but that would turn this reply into a massive wall of text so I will mention some important ones only. The main issue is that personality-wise you have absolutely no power over your Inquisitor's core personality other than denouncing or embracing the maker. You are limited to playing a morally good character and there are none (or extremely few) actual options for darker or more villanous characters. 

 

Good example: I wanted to mock the envy demon for showing me the power abuse I already intended with the Inquisition. Good luck right? I also wanted to have mother giselle executed or killed but nope. Could dispand the wardens, mages and templars - but not the chantry? Ugh...

 

Said it before and saying it again, I love this game to death but the writers failed monumentally when it comes to roleplaying and giving options for a more darker, crueler, fantatical or "villanous" Inquisitor. Morals are forced on us at every turn by the writers.

[thats1evildude]

The problem with the Inquisitor is the non-sensical void of personality based choices. The biggest offender is that we have no options to attempt entering the black city ourselves despite holding the key literally IN our hands

Yeah, that's not an astronomically bad idea that will end the world.

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

on consoles, grabbing the tactics for mages was actually pretty necessary

Yeah >.> I always set up my healer and had like 15 tactic choices <.<

Jesus Christ...

 

Do you have an understanding of a little concept called 'finite resources'?

I think like 5 people and a post it note do, saddly.

 

@OP What even is a PnP game? Because your entire premise of "infinite choices and possibilities" is impossible.
Skryim still had a limited amount of things you could do. I waned to set up a farm, raise some cattle, and give my darling a blue feather after giving them 270 stone material.
Can't do that in skyrim now can I?

[thats1evildude]

@OP What even is a PnP game?

 

Pen and paper. Old school D&D or some other such game with miniatures and the like.

 

Speaking as a PNP veteran, however, that whole "unlimited number of choices" thing is a crock of s**t.

 

In theory, it's true. In reality, if the GM (the Game Master) goes to the work of creating a storyline, refusing to play along means not playing at all.

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

Pen and paper. Old school D&D or some other such game.

 

Speaking as a PNP veteran, however, that whole "unlimited number of choices" thing is a crock of s**t.

 

In theory, it's true. In reality, if the GM (the Game Master) goes to the work of creating a setting and a storyline, refusing to play along means not playing at all.

If the GM says no war whales, there shall be no war whales.
Sad I know but tis true.

[Nefla]

You know, Fallout: New Vegas is one of my favorite games roleplay wise. It doesn't give you a background (so fire those headcanons!) but there are soooo many dialogue options available based on all your different skills, perks, S.P.E.C.I.A.L, reputation, etc...as well as different ways to solve quests, non-combat skills and so on. I just love it

 

More dialogue options, more extreme personality options, the ability to be ruthless, evil, have racial pride for your own race (go elves!) or even racism against a different race, non-combat skills, etc...I wish that stuff had been in DA:I

[Big I]

The problem with the Inquisitor is the non-sensical void of personality based choices. The biggest offender is that we have no options to attempt entering the black city ourselves despite holding the key literally IN our hands

 

That sort of thing is not unique to Inquisition. In Origins you can kill Flemeth and tell her you're going to keep her grimoire for yourself and unlock it's power. Not giving it to Morrigan confers no gameplay or lore difference. It is never mentioned again, either in game or in the sequels. Doing so actually hurts you because it means you can't finish Morrigan's quest.

[nos_astra]

In regards to your mage complaint, why in a realm of magic, can't my warrior or rogue be just as ridiculous as mages? Is it somehow more logical that someone can conjure firestorms, but my warrior doesn't know an ancient technique to split the ground open? 

 

Mostly because of the lore. Mages are feared. Or were supposed to be feared. Instead you have rogues and warriors (and unnecessary distinction in my opinion) who are just as dangerous.

 

It was originally supposed to be a grey area: Locking mages up as a necessary evil. It has become a simple black/white thing thanks to a combat system that has rogues and warriors use powerful spells.

[atum]

What

 

 

Intensive porpoises are the best kind of porpoises.

 

Spoiler

...

[Donk]

Because now EA forces Bioware to make games for people without brains that can barely finish the game on casual with tutorials, auto level and youtube guides. I see people with some questions in these forums that made me understand why Bioware went dumb. Some VERY obvious things are considered "secrets" by lots of players. Or basic builds and equipment are "amazing". So yeah, I doubt we will ever see a game where people need to use more "human central processor unit" to play. Everything is "too complicated", "too complex", and people want simple. Hit corypheus, kiss cassandra, find "hidden" nug king. It is so boring it makes me sleep just by talking about it, but yeah "Hidden" treasures, "godly" items, and so on... at least for this Skyrim generation (AS SAID BY BIOWARE OK? THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO PLEASE BRAINDEAD PEOPLE WHO PLAY SKYRIM)

 

Of course. They wanted you to buy their games too.

[MaxQuartiroli]

In Dragon Age Origins you had several important choices to make, Sex, Race, Class, & Background. All of which affected your adventure on some level and it is that last feature that really made DAO stand out when it came to CC, I can't think of any other RPG that I've ever played where I had the choice of picking a background and it shaping so much of who my character was and how the world saw them. Mass Effect kind of did something similar but you were still always the same person.

 

 

This was only possible because DA:O had a silent protagonist.

From the moment they introduced VA in games, where every single recorded line affect the budget, the differences between each character are smaller and smaller, becuase they have to limit costs.

[Aren]

It's the Guy at the Gym Fallacy.

http://www.giantitp....the-Gym-Fallacy

To sum up: if a character is doing things that we can do (swing a sword, fire a bow, etc.), people think they shouldn't be able to do things we can't do (split the ground, leap massive distances, etc.)

This fallacy ignores that these characters already regularly do things we can't. I cannot be shot with an arrow without requiring hospitalization, but my character is regularly peppered with arrows. (Or set on fire, or struck by boulders, or a host of other injuries.) They carry massive loads of equipment without being encumbered. And they never show signs of being weary after a massive battle. Hell, at the battle of the Arbor Wilds, Cullen fights for like three days straight.

And yet there are times in which the narrative try to channel artificially these fallacies while creating more contrived scenery.

Take DAO:

the Warden defeated by a scripted arrow into the tower.

the Warden stand without batting an eyelash to the shots of 100-200 arrows from enemies while under the player control.

[Aren]

Truly, an arrow to the knee is no laughing matter.

Spoiler

hosting immagini