If I am brutally honest, open world can f*** right off for all I care. If the choice was more reactivity, agency and story/character content or a bloomin' open world where you can pick alien flowers all day or have a 1001 "Sprinkle my dead wife's ashes off of some cliff."-quests....That choice will be a no-brainer for me.
I would agree, Open world has only distilled my experience in bioware games.
This is why:
"Note: Originally, if the Warden was a Blood Mage, Wynne would report her suspicions to the templars. This was removed from the final game, but an unofficial patch is available to replace the scene for the PC version: it is a smaller optional file available under the larger "Dialogue Tweaks" patch. The Warden can admit to this and end up being forced to fight both the Mages and Templars present. However, with a high enough persuasion the Warden can tell them it is "Grey Warden magic", which First Enchanter Irving eventually accepts, allowing you to keep your chosen allies for the final battle."
It was probably removed because the player can immediately proceed to make Wynne a blood mage on level up without a qualm.
I seriously don't get why was this removed from canon game?
It is bloody amazing!...ah yes, Cullen dies in here, that is why 
Agreed. This was evidenced in both DAI and Fallout 4.If I am brutally honest, open world can f*** right off for all I care. If the choice was more reactivity, agency and story/character content or a bloomin' open world where you can pick alien flowers all day or have a 1001 "Sprinkle my dead wife's ashes off of some cliff."-quests....That choice will be a no-brainer for me.
Reactivity and player agency typically work in opposition to each other. The game cannot react to you appropriately without severely restricting the range of things you can do.If I am brutally honest, open world can f*** right off for all I care. If the choice was more reactivity, agency and story/character content or a bloomin' open world where you can pick alien flowers all day or have a 1001 "Sprinkle my dead wife's ashes off of some cliff."-quests....That choice will be a no-brainer for me.
I have to disagree on that. It is possible, they have made progress on that in DAI, in my opinion. Not as much as I'd like to see and still with some hiccups here and there, but it's a start. Plus, for a game where you can only play as a human that makes it a bit easier than managing 4 races and may end up with things like the dreaded Mythal question as a Dalish Elf.Reactivity and player agency typically work in opposition to each other. The game cannot react to you appropriately without severely restricting the range of things you can do.
And if the alternative to an open world is corridor-based level design where you can only go one direction (like ME2), I'll the open world every time.
Reactivity and player agency typically work in opposition to each other. The game cannot react to you appropriately without severely restricting the range of things you can do.
I don't entirely agree with this. This basically saying the system only gives you these options so that it can properly react to it. However, if reactivity was just a feature that sits beside the current system, the reactive system would only have to keep track of the decisions made so that it could react to that subset when the time arises. Basically react on a subset rather than every decision made. I guess if one was going for full scale reactivity this would be the case
Reactivity and player agency typically work in opposition to each other. The game cannot react to you appropriately without severely restricting the range of things you can do.
And if the alternative to an open world is corridor-based level design where you can only go one direction (like ME2), I'll the open world every time.
And many more examples as that little one that proofs that game can react nicely to you and even minor stupid things you do even in open world without need to sacrifice anything in here and I doubt ME:A will get to be bigger open world then GTA:V. No one in here asks "Ooooh I made buxom blonde character now I want everyone in game to point that out" but if there is character like Iron Bull that goes like "I like blondes/ blondes forever" and thing as that then little programming in where just that one character actually recognizes you as blonde in here. It is not hard to make, especially since we already get limited hair colors to chose from. Not to mention our class recognition in here!!! This should be on every damn step in game, in every damn cinematic your class needs to be recognized! Otherwise they might as well just give us one class if others are "none-existent" within a game.
This is what we like to call smart programming and can be done nicely in certain situations for certain characters as long as you care to put effort in it and not be lazy about it. So your reason why we can't have such thing in game is very poor, because it outright tells it can't be because developers should be lazy with their game.
My favourite part of playing these games is deciding what to do next. If the game just directs me there, or gives me no other option, then a bug chunk of the gameplay has been taken away.As for your other point; I actually prefer the lay out to be more linear. As I feel that usually an open world is just there to increase your playtime in the most useless way because of all the travel time. I found that to be the case with Skyrim and to some extend DAI, though not as much. I also remember the days in WoW where you had to walk everywhere until level 40 and with Skyrim where I spent more time looking for wth I was supposed to do next rather than actually playing the game.
But even classes are a pretty big restriction. In a classless system, it becomes more difficult to react in a plausible way (as Skyrim demonstrated).https://www.youtube....h?v=0mIMogB5GkU
And many more examples as that little one that proofs that game can react nicely to you and even minor stupid things you do even in open world without need to sacrifice anything in here and I doubt ME:A will get to be bigger open world then GTA:V. No one in here asks "Ooooh I made buxom blonde character now I want everyone in game to point that out" but if there is character like Iron Bull that goes like "I like blondes/ blondes forever" and thing as that then little programming in where just that one character actually recognizes you as blonde in here. It is not hard to make, especially since we already get limited hair colors to chose from. Not to mention our class recognition in here!!! This should be on every damn step in game, in every damn cinematic your class needs to be recognized! Otherwise they might as well just give us one class if others are "none-existent" within a game.
You're completely right about this, but we've seen BioWare remove options from their games simply because they wouldn't be acknowledged by the game, and the devs worried the players wouldn't understand. They cut an entire origin (the mysterious stranger) from DAO for this reason.I don't entirely agree with this. This basically saying the system only gives you these options so that it can properly react to it. However, if reactivity was just a feature that sits beside the current system, the reactive system would only have to keep track of the decisions made so that it could react to that subset when the time arises. Basically react on a subset rather than every decision made. I guess if one was going for full scale reactivity this would be the case
Imagine putting NPCs Minecraft and having them be reactive to your choices. How well would that work?
That's just the thing, this is not minecraft (thank the goddess), and it's not even Baldur's Gate, reactivity is very achievable within what was established as the typical ME experience.
Reactivity and player agency typically work in opposition to each other. The game cannot react to you appropriately without severely restricting the range of things you can do.
And if the alternative to an open world is corridor-based level design where you can only go one direction (like ME2), I'll the open world every time.
I suppose this is the question, isn't it? You enjoyed DA:I, despite the fact that most of the exploration and open-world elements led to nothing valuable or interesting, while I would happily give it all away if in return I got something smaller more in line with the size of DA:O, with better gameplay, better reactivity, better cut-scenes, and better story.
I definitely appreciate the Bethesda approach, but you have to see that there are major flaws with the fact that you can be the head of the fighters guild, the Archmage, master of the Thieves guild, AND the Listener of the Dark Brotherhood all at the same time (without any reactivity of course...). Because this is not player agency, this is a joke...
I can play and enjoy a tabletop RPG just fine, but I vehemently disagree with the idea that a video game should be nothing more than a simulation for this type of game, because this approach ignores completely the biggest advantage a video game has - which is the ability to actually show and amaze with all the things you could only imagine yourself up to this point, to let you experience complete immersion in a fantastic scenario in a way that tabletop games or even movies can almost never achieve.
I love DAO. If anyone were still making a game like DAO (slower pace of combat, silent protagonist, more control over NPCs), I'd be all over that.I suppose this is the question, isn't it? You enjoyed DA:I, despite the fact that most of the exploration and open-world elements led to nothing valuable or interesting, while I would happily give it all away if in return I got something smaller more in line with the size of DA:O, with better gameplay, better reactivity, better cut-scenes, and better story.
It's player agency because you can do those things, but you don't have to. One thing that seems to get overlooked is the option not to do something. Why would anyone do all of those things in a single playthrough unless she wanted to? And if she wanted to, I'd say it's a good thing that the game let her.I definitely appreciate the Bethesda approach, but you have to see that there are major flaws with the fact that you can be the head of the fighters guild, the Archmage, master of the Thieves guild, AND the Listener of the Dark Brotherhood all at the same time (without any reactivity of course...). Because this is not player agency, this is a joke...
Video games generally is such a broad category as to be meaningless.I can play and enjoy a tabletop RPG just fine, but I vehemently disagree with the idea that a video game should be nothing more than a simulation for this type of game, because this approach ignores completely the biggest advantage a video game has - which is the ability to actually show and amaze with all the things you could only imagine yourself up to this point, to let you experience complete immersion in a fantastic scenario in a way that tabletop games or even movies can almost never achieve.
That you can put tabletop RPGs and movies in the same category boggles the mind.
Just a clarification about the line in bold: I'm not directly comparing, I'm speaking about being immersed in a fantastic world / experience.
Obviously movies and tabletop RPGs are not one and the same...
As for "why are you playing a driving game?", it should be obvious at this point, but your particular definition of the concept of RPG as a video game, is far from the universal standard definition. My ideal video game RPG is very different than yours.
I want to play a role, but at the same time I don't really see a point in writing and imagining my own origins story, at least not always.
The freedom to choose and respond as I wish in game is important to me, but it's also rather important to me to see my character reacts in a way
that is connected to his personality and his abilities. If I could have a number of "personalities" in a similar way to the sarcastic / aggressive Hawke from DA2 (but a larger number that will cover more areas, and won't tell me that my blood-mage Hawke blamed blood-magic for the death of his mother, rather than the insane individual who did that - I mean, it's not like insane serial killers do not exist even without magic...) in order to get a better reactivity and a less wooden character (aka Inquisitor), I would enjoy it very much.
As for class-reactivity in a class-less system, you mentioned before in a different post that it might be a problem.
I think that the solution is very simple: Every character will have a choice of a passive "focus" talent; you can choose for example between the usual three - warrior, rogue, mage, and perhaps also choices in the spectrum between them, you will get a stat bonus to your "focus" affinity, magic for example, and in cutscenes your PC will respond accordingly with his strongest affinity.
All this while allowing you to mix and match a number of skills from different areas.
The list goes on and on. What DAI does is provide more gameplay that is neither combat nor dialogue.
What gameplay was this? The fetch quests?
It's player agency because you can do those things, but you don't have to. One thing that seems to get overlooked is the option not to do something. Why would anyone do all of those things in a single playthrough unless she wanted to? And if she wanted to, I'd say it's a good thing that the game let her.
But it does no credit to the world that our protagonist can do absolutely everything, especially when the world doesn't react accordingly.
Video games generally is such a broad category as to be meaningless.
CRPGs should be RPGs first, and video games second (or possibly not at all).
Why?
That you can put tabletop RPGs and movies in the same category boggles the mind. They have nothing at all in common. Movies are a passive experience; the viewer brings nothing to the exchange. Most video games are the same: there's a set storyline and all the player does is follow it. ME3 is an excellent example of this.
Unless you play tabletop RPGs alone, then the experience is as much about playing one's character as it is enjoying your friend's characters and experiencing the DM's story. Some degree of passivity is perfectly acceptable in tabletop games.
Videogames are the only media that can provide the visual immersion of a movie with the reactivity and engagement of a tabletop RPG. Attempting to achieve both does not make them a worse product.
RPGs never do that. Not once. Not ever. Roleplaying games are a creative exercise for the player. If the player isn't making decisions for his character (and they need to be his character's decisions, not his own), then he's not roleplaying.
Asking roleplaying games should allow a non-roleplaying approach is like asking a driving game to allow a way to play that doesn't include driving. It could be done, sure, but why are you playing a driving game?
But Mass Effect isn't a driving game. It's not even just an RPG, it's a shooter as well. In this case stripping away the RPG features (or vice versa) leaves us with a perfectly playable game. Of course, it would be a lesser experience: one would be a half-decent Gears clone and the other a half-decent Telltale clone, but still enjoyable nonetheless.
Your comparison is especially incorrect when we consider the fact that no RPG inherently requires the player to roleplay. That rule must be imposed by either the DM or yourself. Many still find it quite fun to just play themselves wearing different skin or just play erratically to see what happens.
I've never understoof how people are able to make in-character decisions without knowing that character's mental state.Just a clarification about the line in bold: I'm not directly comparing, I'm speaking about being immersed in a fantastic world / experience.
Obviously movies and tabletop RPGs are not one and the same...
As for "why are you playing a driving game?", it should be obvious at this point, but your particular definition of the concept of RPG as a video game, is far from the universal standard definition. My ideal video game RPG is very different than yours.
I want to play a role, but at the same time I don't really see a point in writing and imagining my own origins story, at least not always.
The dominant personality system in DA2 was trying to solve a problem that hadn't existed before they voiced the protagonist. And I would argue it made the problem worse, by having Hawke act in less controllable and less predictable ways.The freedom to choose and respond as I wish in game is important to me, but it's also rather important to me to see my character reacts in a way that is connected to his personality and his abilities. If I could have a number of "personalities" in a similar way to the sarcastic / aggressive Hawke from DA2 (but a larger number that will cover more areas, and won't tell me that my blood-mage Hawke blamed blood-magic for the death of his mother, rather than the insane individual who did that - I mean, it's not like insane serial killers do not exist even without magic...) in order to get a better reactivity and a less wooden character (aka Inquisitor), I would enjoy it very much.
That's a good start. How do NPCs know what your character's focus is?As for class-reactivity in a class-less system, you mentioned before in a different post that it might be a problem.
I think that the solution is very simple: Every character will have a choice of a passive "focus" talent; you can choose for example between the usual three - warrior, rogue, mage, and perhaps also choices in the spectrum between them, you will get a stat bonus to your "focus" affinity, magic for example, and in cutscenes your PC will respond accordingly with his strongest affinity.
All this while allowing you to mix and match a number of skills from different areas.
Agreed. This was evidenced in both DAI and Fallout 4.
Witcher 3 meshed the two aspects rather well though.
You can have an open-world RPG with a good story. The dev team just has to write one.
This is even a problem with class-based systems. If I play a Rogue without looking like a Rogue, NPCs shouldn't identify me as a Rogue. The sort of reactivity you menton should be based on things the character is visibly doing, not what the character inherently is. And that would work in a class-based or a classless system.
I don't think anyone would want to have every NPC and their mother call upon one's class. But the squaddies and NPC's that know what you can do should touch upon it every so often. Or make it more important through cutscenes where you have a "Biotic" or "Tech" option/interrupt. Just like in DA2 where you can convince people to do or don't do stuff by using the "I'm a mage too"-option, following a nifty display of actual magic in a cutscene.
Here is what I hate about class reactivity. It assumes too much. If bioware was really freeform in the assigning of attributes, I could make a mage with strength as my highest stat. The problem is when it comes to reaction, bioware's design won't check my class and attributes. Areas which I am nimble should not be determined by my classification as a rogue, they should be determined on my attribute system. Skills should be the things that are restricted by classification.
This is what I can do in an arcanum. There is a mission where I have to find out information but this dead mercenary guy is dead. I can either,
-search his belongings,
-find information from someone who knows him? or
-Use my necromancy skill to resurrect his spirit and talk to him from there.
This is additionally one of the problems that bioware has. Reactive elements take place completely in dialog. I can only use my specialization for combat abilities and nothing else. Necromancy does not grant me any perks because the things that I can actually do when I am not in combat or in dialog are very limited. Bioware has situations where reactivity would be amazing to implement but even then they never implement it and it is disheartening. Here are the amount of skills you can take advantage of in KOTOR when you are not in combat or dialog.
It's not a lot but it sure enhanced the experience.
Here is what I hate about class reactivity. It assumes too much. If bioware was really freeform in the assigning of attributes, I could make a mage with strength as my highest stat. The problem is when it comes to reaction, bioware's design won't check my class and attributes. Areas which I am nimble should not be determined by my classification as a rogue, they should be determined on my attribute system. Skills should be the things that are restricted by classification.
DAO used to do that. Your mage would be kinda gimped if you put all your stat points into strength, but you could do it
In dialogue you can use intimidate (based on strength) Or charm (based on cunning) There were other actions you could take based on stats For example think there was a dexterity check to catch Isabela at cheating at cards.
DAO used to do that. Your mage would be kinda gimped if you put all your stat points into strength, but you could do it
In dialogue you can use intimidate (based on strength) Or charm (based on cunning) There were other actions you could take based on stats For example think there was a dexterity check to catch Isabela at cheating at cards.
I kinda wish that some skills affected our personal look.
I mean for example maxing out 'strength' would take effect onto your body and make you more buffed. This would have been cool feature and avoid "I'm man who never had sword in his life, I'm just random person but I'm buffed as heck in here."
I kinda wish that some skills affected our personal look.
I mean for example maxing out 'strength' would take effect onto your body and make you more buffed. This would have been cool feature and avoid "I'm man who never had sword in his life, I'm just random person but I'm buffed as heck in here."
Fable 2 had something like that. Putting things into Will made you all glowy, Skill made you taller and Strength made you buffer. Though Instead of looking buff your character just ended up looking weirdly chunky. Not that I recall anyone actually reacting to it though then again it's been ages since I played that game.
Bioware still does better than Skyrim. In a Bioware game, I can ignore the questions that are stuff I would already know (especially when I already know the answer myself). And they've at least begun to use prompts that only show up if you meet certain flags.
But in Skyrim, I was walking around Whiterun when a guard sneered at me "Keep your hands in your pockets, thief!"
I really needed a dialogue option that said "Really, Jon? I am in the Thieve's Guild, yes. I'm also the head of the Warrior's Guild and the fracking Archmage. Not only that, I'm the bloody Thane of this city, and you just watched me kill a dragon with my voice and some lightning bolts. So maybe f---- right off."
Ah yes, Skyrim. The game in which you're essentially a demigod that stops the apocalypse yet local rent-a-cops can still beat you down for scaring a chicken.
I seriously don't get why was this removed from canon game?
It is bloody amazing!...ah yes, Cullen dies in here, that is why
Cullen must never die! NEVER!!
Retour en haut