847 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Game theorists are also unsure about the exact definition of winning condition, or failure state for that matter.

If the definition applies to players, then it doesn't apply to RPGs. Players don't act directly in RPGs, except arguably during character creation.

[Grieving Natashina]

tbh I see it as for the most part you play the general of the army and have to look at the bigger picture in your planning and I think this was what the whole point of the war table thing not just what happens to your clan but the world as a whole.I do agree that some of the missions could have been done differently but I can also understand why they were approached the way they were as well. I agree that it seems strange that a prisoner is all of a sudden given such a lofty position but I guess strange things can happen when the world is falling apart and people are desperately looking for answers and I guess that by giving you this chance they might save themselves.

Hmm, good point and I can see what you mean. However, I still feel that some of those quests should have been shown on screen. Also, I have a guide for the War Table and frankly, some of those options are counter intuitive. Even with judging the advisors strengths and weaknesses, the logical choice isn't always the right one.

When I wrote down all of the War Table quests, I was left very puzzled. For example, there is quest called Address a Nobleman's Concerns and it seems to be a perfect for Josie. The text fits too. It's actually Cullen you need to send out. I like the character and all, but that left me scratching my head. When I think of diplomacy, I think of the diplomatic advisor. I don't think of the military advisor. I know he was head of the Kirkwall Templars for awhile and obviously can earn respect, but still...shouldn't the diplomatic advisor handle diplomatic concerns, and then send out Cullen for the follow up? It's the very first quest in that chain too. When I express my issues with the War Table, that's a biggie.

If you don't mind me asking you and Alan, what parts of the War Table and Requisition Table worked for you? I know you just addressed it some, but would you mind elaborating? And how would you see it working for ME:A?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I haven't played table-top RPGs except two sessions of D&D (I like the idea of the game but the group was full of annoying weirdos) but from what I hear about DM's, that's often not the case. So would you say that no video games are RPGs? Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all have win conditions and failure states.

Not for the players they don't. You play your character. That's it. If your character dies as a result of his choices, that's a legitimate outcome.

The character might have failed, but the player didn't.

My favourite Warden in DAO was an abject coward who refused to learn useful combat skills. My goal in that playthrough was to see what would happen if I built a character like that. He died in Haven when Sten killed him. I call that a wholly successful playthrough.

I don't even understand how a player could fail in a roleplaying game.

[Shechinah]

...

 

Not there is no worth in what you are saying and no discussion to be had about it but what I was trying to address was the reasoning of the people asking the then not-Inquisitor for help in providing food for the people. Namely, that there is a difference between hunting in regular times and hunting while the land has all kinds of hostile people and creatures about that can give an armed, armored and experience party like the then not-Inquisitor's party pause.

 

A hunter who hunts wild birds is unlikely to have a good time defending themselves against a group of demons, templars or mages. That is likely to have the same end result as every picnic the Inquisitor and their party finds.

 

 

[Elhanan]

Mean absolutely nothing to me.
 
Also DAI was released in a very weak year for gaming in general, I think the highlight was either Dark Souls II a niche game or Fry Cry 4 (which in my opinion was just the most awesome entry into the series ever) Maybe Wolfenstein but that's sort of in a odd era at the moment, I mean I played a bunch of the old games but...I don't know, it seems sort of weird for it still be active franchise. I know for a fact though, that it wouldn't even be in my top five for 2014.
 
 
 
It might be in the top thirty though...

The Awards mean little to me either. But they do mean a little to those in the industry, esp when DAI also won the industries top honors.

[Grieving Natashina]

Not there is no worth in what you are saying and no discussion to be had about it but what I was trying to address was the reasoning of the people asking the then not-Inquisitor for help in providing food for the people. Namely, that there is a difference between hunting in regular times and hunting while the land has all kinds of hostile people and creatures about that can give an armed, armored and experience party like the then not-Inquisitor's party pause.

A hunter who hunts wild birds is unlikely to have a good time defending themselves against a group of demons, templars or mages. That is likely to have the same end result as every picnic the Inquisitor and their party finds.

I'm not sure if you caught this, but I did enjoy helping the refugees in the Hinterlands. It felt like I was taking a proactive role in the story, and it had a small reward. I loved bombing around the zone and hearing NPCs mention how much the Inquistion help has benefited them. I enjoyed that because it felt connected to the larger events as I was experiencing them as a player.

Some things I didn't care for, such as the entirety of the Requisition Table. Those quests didn't have any story impact and felt like busy work to me. It was only there get Power, and frankly there was much more entertaining ways to get a lot of it. The Western Approach is my favorite zone in the game, because the quests really tie into the plot and depending upon when the player does it, is a nice foreshadowing for Weisshaupt. Plus, the dragon and the wyvern give just as much Power judging from my notes as the RT did.

I don't complain about the shards too much. I mean, trying to get to some of them with a KB+M can be tricky, but I can always ignore them. Just to throw that out there. Despite some of my disdain for the quests, that one doesn't phase me.

I don't think the War Table was a bad idea, but I feel like it could be refined quite a bit. I agree with your analogy, but I point right back to the quest I mentioned in my previous post.

[KaiserShep]

I don't even understand how a player could fail in a roleplaying game.

 

Well, dying in combat counts. 

[Iakus]

 

I haven't played table-top RPGs except two sessions of D&D (I like the idea of the game but the group was full of annoying weirdos) but from what I hear about DM's, that's often not the case. So would you say that no video games are RPGs? Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all have win conditions and failure states.

Computer rpgs are but a shadow of what a well-run tabletop game can be.  This is not a knock on cRPGs, as I do enjoy them.  But what they lack is quite literally a human element.  Tabletop rpgs are a cooperative affair, where the players and the DM work together to tell a story.  As such, while there may be objectives in the story the players work towards (and not everyone may be working towards the same objectives) the cooperative aspect blurs the line between what is "winning" and what is "failure"  Ultimately, what's important is to have fun while creating a good story.

 

Or, as one DM I had put it succinctly "It's not my story.  It's our story"

 

In a computer game, like BG or KOTOR, you are not playing alongside other players (save in an MMO, perhaps, but I have yet to see one made that really encourages role-play)  Your companions are all NPCs, scripted to act certain ways under certain conditions.  The game is less a story to write and more a maze to navigate.  You can effect who you are, and make certain choices at certain points that can reshape the maze.  But you are always limited by what the game will allow you to do.  This is where "the illusion of choice" comes in.  Sophisticated games will make it feel like you chose a certain path, or at least, that the path you are on was arrived at organically, and not look too closely at the limitations you are operating under.  There may be multiple endings, but they are all objectives you are allowed to pursue.  You may have dialogue options, but whether there are two, three, or six, you only get so many of them.  

 

As games get more intricate, they may get closer to emulating the tabletop experience, but they are by no means there yet.

[Grieving Natashina]

Computer rpgs are but a shadow of what a well-run tabletop game can be. This is not a knock on cRPGs, as I do enjoy them. But what they lack is quite literally a human element. Tabletop rpgs are a cooperative affair, where the players and the DM work together to tell a story. As such, while there may be objectives in the story the players work towards (and not everyone may be working towards the same objectives) the cooperative aspect blurs the line between what is "winning" and what is "failure" Ultimately, what's important is to have fun while creating a good story.

Or, as one DM I had put it succinctly "It's not my story. It's our story"

<partially snipped to save space>

<honorary like until I get more>

I don't always agree with your posts, but that's an excellent point.

[RoboticWater]

I'd say ME2 doesn't really do a very good job there either. We are only in the Terminus systems in ME2, it hardly gives us a good overview of the galaxy as a whole, ME1 did better with that. It's only in ME3 when we actually experience the dominant cultures (asari, turian, salarian, etc.) in more depth (yet another thing ME3 has to catch up on).

 

IMO, it isn't even ME2's biggest issue that it doesn't advance the plot. As you said, some threads could have been picked up on more in ME3. No, it's big issue is that it throws out a lot of the ground work that was already established in ME1.

- Shepard was a spectre and had council support - gone (may be re-established to some degree but still the authority that came with it is irrelevant)

- Shepard had a ship and crew - blown up (partially re-established)

- Shepard had a prothean expert - gone and changed carrer

- Shepard had convinced the council of the reaper threat (retconned, claims dismissed)

- Shepard had a mandate to find out how to stop the reapers - gone, s/he is hunting geth now and then gets blown up

 

I could go on but the point is, in its first 10 minutes ME2 manages to rip this series' initial setup to shreds. That is the real crime IMO. It doesn't try to build on the first part but instead actually seems to try and annihilate every accomplishment from ME1 as much as it can.

I disagree. ME2 covers the the 3 main sub-arcs of the series: the Geth, the Genophage, and the Citadel council. Turians and asari are covered under Citadel politics and salarians are closely tied to the Genophage. Admittedly, ME2 should have covered Citadel politics more deeply, but Mass Effect never needed to examine each culture separately. Unlike DA:O, the sub-arcs involve multiple cultures interacting with each other rather than individual cultures dealing with their own problems.

 

I liked how ME2 tore all our accomplishments to shreds because it reminds me of Empire Strikes Back. ME1 set us up with a fairly simple conflict that was bound to be solved by some plot contrivance (the only way to defeat a horde of god machines), and ME2 adds a host of more personal conflicts along the way. By the end of Mass Effect 2, you have a number of connections throughout the galaxy with high ranking officials and specialists as well as close relationship with Harbinger. Really, it's all ME3's fault for not leveraging that.

[Shechinah]

I'm not sure if you caught this, but I did enjoy helping the refugees in the Hinterlands. It felt like I was taking a proactive role in the story, and it had a small reward. I loved bombing around the zone and hearing NPCs mention how much the Inquistion help has benefited them. I enjoyed that because it felt connected to the larger events as I was experiencing them as a player.

 
Oh, I think we are misunderstanding each other; what I was saying was that what I was trying to address was unrelated to what you seemed to be addressing since my point was specifically about this;

"There are a bunch of able bodies and they're hungry, so instead of hunting for food themselves, they have to rely on the Inquisitor being an errand boy and hunt food for them?" - battlebloodmage

 

I was trying to show the in-universe reason why a bunch of able-bodied people could not hunt food for themselves and were requestinb the then not-Inquisitor's help.

 

I quite like the quests myself especially for the reasons you've mentioned. The Inquisition is not only working to stop the tide of chaos by dealing with the rifts but are also working to restore order by helping people in their time of need. Fetching herbs and gathering meat may seem like small acts but they can mean the world to the starving village trying to feed homeless refugees and the healer trying to save and care for the wounded and sick.

[prosthetic soul]

When you make a story, you should start with the endgame in mind.  I do not necessarily think that was Bioware's problem thanks to "SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" but I honestly couldn't care less about the overarching story.  If you have good characters and character interaction, the story should take care of itself in cases like these.

 

Without good characters a story may as well be Cold Mountain-tier. 

 

And if you understood that reference then you have my deepest empathy for reading quite possibly the most boring book imaginable with admittedly a decent overarching story. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, dying in combat counts.

I disagree. If the character's death was the result of in-character decisions, then that's just a consequence of the character's design. Discovering that ending was the point of playing that character.

That's the end of that playthrough. The player is then free to try a different character design to see what happens.

That's roleplaying.

[Grieving Natashina]

Oh, I think we are misunderstanding each other; what I was saying was that what I was trying to address was unrelated to what you seemed to be addressing since my point was specifically about this;"There are a bunch of able bodies and they're hungry, so instead of hunting for food themselves, they have to rely on the Inquisitor being an errand boy and hunt food for them?" - battlebloodmage

I was trying to show the in-universe reason why a bunch of able-bodied people could not hunt food for themselves and were requestinb the then not-Inquisitor's help.

I quite like the quests myself especially for the reasons you've mentioned. The Inquisition is not only working to stop the tide of chaos by dealing with the rifts but are also working to restore order by helping people in their time of need. Fetching herbs and gathering meat may seem like small acts but they can mean the world to the starving village trying to feed homeless refugees and the healer trying to save and care for the wounded and sick.

We're in agreement then, at least when it comes to some of the issues that battlebloodmage brought up. I don't mind fetch quests, so long as I feel that they serve the greater plot. My problem wasn't so much that, as the level of impact that the Wardens could have being text-only.

As an aside, I don't mind some of the WT quests being text-only. Frankly, it's not cost effective to have all of those quests take place on-screen. Some of them make for excellent reading and I do think they add quite a bit to the story of Thedas as a whole. Others, like find the HoF, make sense to leave off screen. It would be a pain in the keister, to say the least.

It's really the Warden quest and how it finishes up the storyline that stuck in my craw. I don't think that those kinds of quests should be left as text-only. If the ME team avoids (imho) that misstep of ending an epic quest chain via text, a War Table-like mechanic could be pretty fun. It could be a great way to tell more of the story rather than leaving it Codex only. The RT...yeah, I'd rather not see anything like that again. If there is though, I'll just roll with it. I've got enough real life stress with bills and the like to let that get too far under my skin.

[prosthetic soul]

I disagree. If the character's death was the result of in-character decisions, then that's just a consequence of the character's design. Discovering that ending was the point of playing that character.

That's the end of that playthrough. The player is then free to try a different character design to see what happens.

That's roleplaying.

Role playing, ideally, should be a CYOA experience (See The Witcher 3).  It forced you into the role of Geralt but what you DID in the game, that was up to you.  And you got three different endings with variations among them.

 

It's when you get streamlined into a crap sundae like ME 3, that's when the ugliness arrives.  You don't make the three-way cross roads at the very end of the game.  You make it along the way. 

 

It should literally not be  ----------------| < ^ >

 

It should be more like a low-hanging tree sprouting from the earth.  The branches can all go into different directions. 

[Battlebloodmage]

 
Oh, I think we are misunderstanding each other; what I was saying was that what I was trying to address was unrelated to what you seemed to be addressing since my point was specifically about this;

"There are a bunch of able bodies and they're hungry, so instead of hunting for food themselves, they have to rely on the Inquisitor being an errand boy and hunt food for them?" - battlebloodmage

 

I was trying to show the in-universe reason why a bunch of able-bodied people could not hunt food for themselves and were requestinb the then not-Inquisitor's help.

 

I quite like the quests myself especially for the reasons you've mentioned. The Inquisition is not only working to stop the tide of chaos by dealing with the rifts but are also working to restore order by helping people in their time of need. Fetching herbs and gathering meat may seem like small acts but they can mean the world to the starving village trying to feed homeless refugees and the healer trying to save and care for the wounded and sick.

That was just one of the examples, there are more nonsense quests in there. Still, if the Inquisitor didn't arrive, would they just rather starve to death or something? There is no mention of them even put in the efforts and just say that they're starving to death. Most of the quests are just lacking a lot of backstories in general and have no impact in the game. A lot of the quests in the Witcher 3, even sidequests could tie itself into the main game and some quests related to one another, not fragmented the way Inquisition does it. You become an errand boy instead of focusing on quests that have stronger impact. That is also something I have problems with in Fallout 4 when you get promoted to high ranking, all you ever do is fetching stuffs for your underlings. Depending on the game, not every character should have the same low level sidequests, by giving us the rank and an army, it makes no sense for the inquisitor to do all of that. Something that should be easily allocated to war tables with our army. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Computer rpgs are but a shadow of what a well-run tabletop game can be. This is not a knock on cRPGs, as I do enjoy them. But what they lack is quite literally a human element. Tabletop rpgs are a cooperative affair, where the players and the DM work together to tell a story. As such, while there may be objectives in the story the players work towards (and not everyone may be working towards the same objectives) the cooperative aspect blurs the line between what is "winning" and what is "failure" Ultimately, what's important is to have fun while creating a good story.

I think this is also how CRPGs work. They replicate the experience of tabletop RPGs, but without the need for other players.

In a computer game, like BG or KOTOR, you are not playing alongside other players (save in an MMO, perhaps, but I have yet to see one made that really encourages role-play) Your companions are all NPCs, scripted to act certain ways under certain conditions.

Within a single playthrough, which is all each of your characters can ever see, this is indistinguishable from the behaviour of real people.

As games get more intricate, they may get closer to emulating the tabletop experience, but they are by no means there yet.

Striving for that should be their overarching design goal.

[Sartoz]

The Awards mean little to me either. But they do mean a little to those in the industry, esp when DAI also won the industries top honors.

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Personally, Bio bribed their way into getting the award. I admit, it's my bias opinion mostly due to "... It's a PC game for PC gamers by PC gamers..." and compared to DA:O and DA2.  You and I have been at it in the DA:I forums for a long time.

 

Let's hope ME:A  is NOT the equivalent of DA:I

[Grieving Natashina]

@battle You made me think of something. I think you summed up a lot of why I hope that the PC for ME:A is lower rank than Shepard or the Inquistor. If I'm the leader of an army or the like, why would I be doing that?

Now, as a grunt, it makes more sense. You need to prove your worth and loyality first by doing the little crap things like gathering resources and such. I think those kinds of lower level quests would work better for someone lower on the totem pole. That's one area where I felt DA2 really shined. Hawke wasn't the leader of an army or a war hero. Hawke earned that respect and earned their titles. It wasn't something just handed to the player right away.

I think we'll disagree about some of the fetch quests. I think it was important for the PC to do things in order to foster trust. Feeding/clothing the refugees because the IQ can, or offering goods to the Dalish clan. It showed those NPCs that the Inquisitor did give a crap even about the "little people." A little bit of a hands on approach was not a bad story touch.

I think they could have made more of those bear butt quests feel like they were connected to the overarching story.

Edit: That was post 14,000.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Role playing, ideally, should be a CYOA experience (See The Witcher 3). It forced you into the role of Geralt but what you DID in the game, that was up to you. And you got three different endings with variations among them.

Too limiting. Why should we be forced to play their character? Why should we be limited to the decision hubs they imagine?

I'm thinking something like Skyrim, but you expand the major sidequests (and have them interact with each other more), and to free up zots for that we completely cut the main quest.

Or Minecraft with a coherent setting and believable characters.

But with pausable BioWare-style combat.

[Sartoz]

Snip

That is also something I have problems with in Fallout 4 when you get promoted to high ranking, all you ever do is fetching stuffs for your underlings. Depending on the game, not every character should have the same low level sidequests, by giving us the rank and an army, it makes no sense for the inquisitor to do all of that. Something that should be easily allocated to war tables with our army. 

                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

And that, is my main POTENTIAL problem with ME:A. Our hero doing grunt work.

 

I think there should be three main skills:

 

1.- Charisma = Influence = getting people to be loyal and  do/see  things your way

2.- Combat = leveling up =  a must do because the games is a 3rd person shooter

3/- Leadership = choices = that get your underlings to level up and perform better and influence/steer  the main story arc.

 

I say just eliminate our future heroes from doing grunt work.

[RoboticWater]

Striving for that should be their overarching design goal.

Unless they don't want it to be.

[Iakus]

I think this is also how CRPGs work. They replicate the experience of tabletop RPGs, but without the need for other players.
 

This is certainly the overall goal.  But cRPGs lack the spontaneity of a really creative player, or a DM who can think and react quickly to players doing something unusual.  Game writers and designers can certainly anticipate a number of things the player may try, But resources can only be stretched so far.

 

 

 

Within a single playthrough, which is all each of your characters can ever see, this is indistinguishable from the behaviour of real people.
 

Depends on how well written and acted they are.  How much work was made to make them seem lifelike.  This is something that has been getting better over time.  Compare the companions in DAI with an unmodded BG and you'll see a massive difference.

 

 

Striving for that should be their overarching design goal.

Agreed

[sjsharp2011]

Hmm, good point and I can see what you mean. However, I still feel that some of those quests should have been shown on screen. Also, I have a guide for the War Table and frankly, some of those options are counter intuitive. Even with judging the advisors strengths and weaknesses, the logical choice isn't always the right one.

When I wrote down all of the War Table quests, I was left very puzzled. For example, there is quest called Address a Nobleman's Concerns and it seems to be a perfect for Josie. The text fits too. It's actually Cullen you need to send out. I like the character and all, but that left me scratching my head. When I think of diplomacy, I think of the diplomatic advisor. I don't think of the military advisor. I know he was head of the Kirkwall Templars for awhile and obviously can earn respect, but still...shouldn't the diplomatic advisor handle diplomatic concerns, and then send out Cullen for the follow up? It's the very first quest in that chain too. When I express my issues with the War Table, that's a biggie.

If you don't mind me asking you and Alan, what parts of the War Table and Requisition Table worked for you? I know you just addressed it some, but would you mind elaborating? And how would you see it working for ME:A?

Yeah that's the kind of mistake I made too where the areas kind of going mad and threatening my clan. So logically you'd think to send Cullen when actually the right choiice is actually Leliana. It was the stop the purge of the elves quest I think where I screwed up is I sent Cullen as I thought strength in numbers. when in truth I should have picked Leliana.

 

As for changes I'd make to the War table I'd probably connect it to a mission counter rather than a clock one as I think that would be better all round as then it's a case of you set your teams targets go away to do a couple of missions or so and then come back for the results as there are a couple of long waits in there and it can be a little bad if you've not got many quests you want to do in that playthrough. In my case it dosen't bother me as I'm a slow player anyway and they've pretty much done the tasks by the time I get back to them but for those that do play at a higher speed it can be annoying I guess so a mission counter I think would be a better option. As for the kinds of missions well  that depends on the story I think. As for Requisitions I generally just use what materials I can spare for each playthrough most of the time. 

[Selene Moonsong]

To me, RPG has always been about story development, being an old time table-top D&D player and DM from early years. It is a collaborative undertaking shared by the participants in the table-top game.

However, "cRPGs" are limited in creating such an environment as the creators (game developers) can only anticipate a limited number of variables to stay within the story, plot, and individual subplots of the game they are presenting. In other words, the developers are trying to tell a story, but are trying to anticipate the player's motives for choices within a limited amount of options made available to the player.

 

True AI (artificial intelligence) does not yet exist, and therefore a computer RPG cannot be programmed react to a situation as a player may hope to achieve. The devil is always in the details and full reasoning is not yet attainable in computer-based games because there are no means of creating sideboard conversations between the GM and the individual player in order to determine an alternative outcome.

 

For me, I always felt the ending of of ME 3 was about as close as anyone could come regarding choices (especially with the extended content that helped to explain some things), that only seemed to prove my own interpretation of the original endings. The biggest mistake BioWare had made at that point was to originally anticipate that everyone playing would also invest time in the multi-player portion of the game to make up enough scored points to achieve the most player-based advantageous decision alternatives towards a solution to the end of the game based on the player's decisions, which was later resolved in the extended ending from my own perspective. 

 

In the end, whether or not I enjoy a cRPG game is whether or not I had fun playing the game. For the Mass Effect series, I can say yes to all three games, as I can only see myself playing for the fun I have had during the games, despite what others may "nit-pick" about.