25 réponses à ce sujet

[animedreamer]

I curious as to what the demographic is on this when it comes to RPGs and more specifically BioWare ones. Obviously games like Baldur's Gate were more complicated than Dragon Age Inquisition, but looking at the middle ground with games like Dragon Age Origins and Jade Empire/KOTOR I think BioWare's best Combat Systems lie somewhere between Baldur's Gate / KOTOR. However if they announced a new DA right this minute I'd lean toward KOTOR/Dragon Age Origins. 

 

However for out of combat character management, I really do prefer the Dragon Age Origins style of many menus, lots information, lets of customization there in. If I need to spend 4 minutes flipping through character sheets then for me thats all the more rewarding as I feel I've full control over how that character is progressing, and what areas they are progressing in. 

 

Let's pretend BioWare will see this though and give them our short answers on the topic title? simplified or complicated?

 

Based on past interviews Mike Laidlaw seems like to simplified systems, and I guess Cameron Lee follows the same.

[straykat]

I've been playing DA2 actually.. I'm reminded of the guy in the Hangman, talking to himself about how "everything has become less complex.. from eating to fighting"..

 

 

But to answer your question, I don't necessarily prefer complicated, but I prefer more difficulty and tactical play. DA2 still manages to do this, even with it's simplified mechanics. In that sense, its still not too different from DAO/Kotor/etc.. Not like DAI is. DAI is so simplified I feel like I can plow through anything with enough HP and patience. And I can pick the enemies in any order. It doesn't really matter what my choices or tactics are most of the time.

[Ghost Gal]

To me, combat is just something to get through to get to the characters and story, so I guess I prefer simpler combat. The less time I have to spend fussing and fiddling with it, the better.

[nightscrawl]

I'd sort of like a mashup of all three games. I thought DAO had a greater variety of skills, but the combat was too sluggish. I thought the tactics organization of DA2 was great, but the combat was a bit too insane on occasion. I thought DAI had a better balance in terms of speed, but movement controls and ability bar limitations were irksome.

 

I play on casual and I don't necessarily require a challenge in that area, but I do like the combat in the games and appreciated he greater customization afforded by DAO and DA2.

[In Exile]

I've been playing DA2 actually.. I'm reminded of the guy in the Hangman, talking to himself about how "everything has become less complex.. from eating to fighting"..

 

 

But to answer your question, I don't necessarily prefer complicated, but I prefer more difficulty and tactical play. DA2 still manages to do this, even with it's simplified mechanics. In that sense, its still not too different from DAO/Kotor/etc.. Not like DAI is. DAI is so simplified I feel like I can plow through anything with enough HP and patience. And I can pick the enemies in any order. It doesn't really matter what my choices or tactics are most of the time.

 

That's always been funny, because DA2 had a more complicated combat system. Far more complicated, and better. The mechanics were far superior to DA:O. The encounter design was ****, but DA2 had better documentation, a richer class synergy system, and - apart from the completely insane level scaling - a better way of getting value out of statistics. 

 

In general, I don't think things need to be complicated. Complex, sure, but D&D is complicated rather than complex. There's a lot of gunk you have to shift through to learn that basically a small group of abilities or builds are worth your while, and everything else is a trap build that you should only pick if you want to troll yourself or gimp yourself. 

 

DA:O had the same problem. It's a complicated system, but it's not complex. You can just very easily wander into a garbage build by not quite getting the easily exploitable mechanics. 

[nightscrawl]

That's always been funny, because DA2 had a more complicated combat system. Far more complicated, and better. The mechanics were far superior to DA:O. The encounter design was ****, but DA2 had better documentation, a richer class synergy system, and - apart from the completely insane level scaling - a better way of getting value out of statistics. 

 

In general, I don't think things need to be complicated. Complex, sure, but D&D is complicated rather than complex. There's a lot of gunk you have to shift through to learn that basically a small group of abilities or builds are worth your while, and everything else is a trap build that you should only pick if you want to troll yourself or gimp yourself. 

 

DA:O had the same problem. It's a complicated system, but it's not complex. You can just very easily wander into a garbage build by not quite getting the easily exploitable mechanics. 

 

I think DAO's advantage, especially for mages, is that it allowed you to build a really specialized mage. Sure, pretty much everything opened up by the end because you had so many points to spend you just threw them in wherever, even in abilities or trees you had no interest in using. But if you wanted to build a drain/support mage, and focus only on that, you could do that, and have a nice variety of skills, because the skills were there for you to do that.

 

That said, I do like the upgrade mechanics of both DA2 and DAI, but I wish they had kept that only for certain abilities, rather than replacing half of everything with upgrades for ALL abilities.

[Remmirath]

I prefer combat mechanics, and mechanics in general, to be both complex and at least somewhat grounded in reality. As such, I vastly prefer DA:O's combat to that of DA:I. After time and reconsideration, DA II's combat is in the middle, yet closer to DA:O than DA:I. Honestly, I consider the mechanics of Baldur's Gate to be fairly simple, but that may just be because I was already so used to AD&D when I played it. It's really not that complex, though, and it works beautifully.

 

There are several things that were stripped in DA II that make me still prefer DA:O's mechanics greatly over DA II's. It was much easier to differentiate a character, build multiple types of character with the same character class, and so on. Skills and stats were also better. While my initial impression of DA:I was more positive than that of DA II, I realise now that was contrast -- there were large improvements from the roleplaying side of things in DA:I compared to DA II, but there were also large steps back in regards to combat.

 

As far as my ideal combat system goes... Rolemaster is the closest I've found yet, although I still throw some house rules on that. In terms of computer games, BG/IW/etc. are my favourites mechanically. I actually really enjoyed DA:O in terms of mechanics as well as everything else; it's thus far the only activated ability system that has that distinction.

 

Short answer: complicated. By far.

[straykat]

I prefer combat mechanics, and mechanics in general, to be both complex and at least somewhat grounded in reality.

 

That's the other thing I wish. With magic, the sky's the limit.

 

Rogues are a little more realistic though..even their specs tend to be mundane. It's warriors that can be ridiculous.

[Artona]

 

 

I really do prefer the Dragon Age Origins style of many menus, lots information, lets of customization there in.

 

I honestly never felt that I could customize my character that much - especially while playing a warrior, where you could basically choose between weapon and shield or two-handed weapons. 

Ad rem - I prefer Baldur's Gate like mechanics. However, you don't need complicated system to have complex mechanics: Dark Souls manages to be "action-rpg", yet it provides really countless ways to create your character. 

[Seraphim24]

I realized for whatever reason I actually really liked Planescape Torment's gameplay, even though it's often heralded for story or other factors.

 

I think the reason for that was that it was a very elegant version of D&D, it took the key elements and kind of re-formulated it into something that emphasized fun and joy.

 

So I think my answer is leaning towards "simplified," but not implying then therefore "easy" or "simple." Oftentimes I find challenging games to be one that focus a few factors, because then you can't like get lost in some skill tree or another.

 

I would not call for instance DA2's systems "simplified," they were very diverse in many respects (multiple classes, multiple skill trees, multiple character combinations of classes and skill trees). The only things that were simplified were things like inventory/armor and stuff like that.

 

I'd say the same logic applied to KOTOR as well, my recollection is multiple skill trees/feats/tiers and things to play with.

[Seraphim24]

That's always been funny, because DA2 had a more complicated combat system. Far more complicated, and better. The mechanics were far superior to DA:O. The encounter design was ****, but DA2 had better documentation, a richer class synergy system, and - apart from the completely insane level scaling - a better way of getting value out of statistics. 

 

In general, I don't think things need to be complicated. Complex, sure, but D&D is complicated rather than complex. There's a lot of gunk you have to shift through to learn that basically a small group of abilities or builds are worth your while, and everything else is a trap build that you should only pick if you want to troll yourself or gimp yourself. 

 

DA:O had the same problem. It's a complicated system, but it's not complex. You can just very easily wander into a garbage build by not quite getting the easily exploitable mechanics. 

 

Ok well I see In Exile just made the same point with a different conclusion. Yes DA2 does actually have a very 'complicated' combat system, but I actually prefer simpler systems as a consequence.

 

As for D&D, I don't really believe it's "complicated" per se, but once again in many ways the lack of complex elements, i.e. what makes it simpler and more pointed elements are also what make it appealing.

 

At any rate, this is difficult to talk about in the context of Bioware, because I believe "complexity" has been the norm for pretty much all their games, the two foremost exceptions being BG1/BG2 and NWN OC (where you might, as Exile suggested, find the small group of powerful abilities)

 

I don't really think those abilities are really hidden though, great cleave, devastating criticals, epic wizard spells, etc. I'd even say that was the appeal of D&D to me originally was with many RPGs i.e. those more descended from roguelikes or great minutae you had you know the big "fireball" sort of spell there that was just screaming to be taken.

 

Plus lots of abilities in D&D are very clearly indicated (Magic Missle is the attack spell, armor is your defensive, spell, etc)

 

HotU and ToB respectively went in the "complex" direction, introducing wealths of things like more prestige classes and all that to the proceedings...

 

I think the big twisting factor is this perception of D&D with it's dice rolling and large rulebooks and all that as the center of "complexity" when in reality I'd say it's in many ways a center of simplification (and part of why it's good)

 

Sure, it probably had some excessive elements, which is why as stated Planescape Torment represented a really good synthesis it seemed.

[Seraphim24]

Anyway, that's maybe sort of vague but for me it all boils down to what is most "fun," which is simplified but not therefore inherently simple or easy per se.

[Seraphim24]

To be more frank, Bioware's ability to generate "complex, detail intensive" sort of systems is positively mythical, if I'm being totally honest.

 

It's almost like some figures straight out of ancient legendary history or something (not that it couldn't or has been met in more recent times of course). You can search around a lot of places and not find things as detail-rich or hyper cerebral.

 

As consequence, I would say it's hardly unsurprising for them to focus on and do things in that way reflective of that in general. I would expect Andromeda for instance to have a scale in that sense quite extraordinary.

 

So, while from my perspective I am saying "simplified" I think it would be silly for them not to focus on their strengths and make it DA2 like with hyper extreme amounts of complexity, and probably more palatable and desirable by the fans and such.

 

I think their efforts in games like DA:I or DA:O to make it more simplified in some respects are noteworthy and should be recognized, however, in my experience, people looking for that end up somewhat dissatisfied due somewhat of the "meager" feeling accompanying that push, whereas the people looking for that hyper driven Byzantine sort of thing end up tolerating it even though they want to move on to something else.

 

Mostly, to also be frank, the idea of moving out of that "zone" of kind of stark complexity and stuff seems to, pardon, just my observation, discomfort the fans and developers in ways that suggest they should probably stick to more of that "safer zone."

[GoldenGail3]

Simple combat.

[kimgoold]

My personal preference is complex.

 

My ideal RPG would have the following ...

 

From DAO

* alotting attribute points yourself

* the wider variety of spells/talents for all classes

* the Specialisations from DAA as well as DAO

* Radial Wheel (console) to utilise all talents your character has acquired

* Changing companions weapons and armour

* Melee and Ranged options  (in battle as required)

 

From DA2

* faster combat mechanics (especially mages)

* expanded Tactics from DAO

* friendship/rivalry bar

 

From DAI

* Tactical Camera

* Crafting Armour and Weapons

* changing companion specs i.e.: Archer to Dual weild.

 

And future improvements:

* crafting rings, belts, amulets

* creating/crafting runes or sigils with unique properties/effects of your own chosen preferences

[Paragon Aeducan]

I don't care that much if the combat is simple or complex or whatever as long as it's fun and satisfying.

[Seraphim24]

I don't care that much if the combat is simple or complex or whatever as long as it's fun and satisfying.

 

 I don't think I've ever really encountered something excessively complex and still fun and satisfying though.

[straykat]

 I don't think I've ever really encountered something excessively complex and still fun and satisfying though.

 

Maybe Minecraft?

 

I mean, anyone can jump in and learn the game quickly. But yet... it keeps people in who move beyond that too.

 

 

Not that that this is relevant to RPGs exactly...

[Realmzmaster]

A game can have a complex system as long as it is easy to learn or enough tutorials and materials are available for one to grasp the system. A game with a complex system combined with a poor UI and tutorials will turn off all but the die hards.

 

A simple to learn system can be complex in its depth. Complexity in and of itself is not necessarily a good idea if it gets in the way of the game play.

[Seraphim24]

Maybe Minecraft?

 

I mean, anyone can jump in and learn the game quickly. But yet... it keeps people in who move beyond that too.

 

 

Not that that this is relevant to RPGs exactly...

 

I'm not saying it can't or doesn't exist but Minecraft would not be the thing lol... I think I lasted maybe 6 minutes before I just lost interest, no denying the popularity though.

[Akrabra]

Easy to learn, difficult to master. That is the balance that most games should strike, in my opinion. So it doesn't have to be complex on the surface, but underneath, it has to. 

[Seraphim24]

Easy to learn, difficult to master. That is the balance that most games should strike, in my opinion. So it doesn't have to be complex on the surface, but underneath, it has to. 

 

The strategy promoted in various Blizzard games... honestly though in that case I tend to feel it's more often just "complex," especially in recent WoW expansions.. though the earlier games (Diablo 1, etc) felt more close to simpler... but then it was in some ways simpler.

 

I guess I just don't really attach to those either..

[straykat]

I'm not saying it can't or doesn't exist but Minecraft would not be the thing lol... I think I lasted maybe 6 minutes before I just lost interest, no denying the popularity though.

 

I don't play it either... but I think it has that "thing" that appeals to many player types.

[Akrabra]

The strategy promoted in various Blizzard games... honestly though in that case I tend to feel it's more often just "complex," especially in recent WoW expansions.. though the earlier games (Diablo 1, etc) felt more close to simpler... but then it was in some ways simpler.

 

I guess I just don't really attach to those either..

Yeah and it has made them a mainstream success while stile catering to the hardcore fans. Unfortunately they haven't been able to follow up with some of their properties, like World of Warcraft. 

[Seraphim24]

Really enjoyed Warcraft 2 (and WC1 looked even better to be honest), similar to Diablo 1, etc, more than WC3 and WoW to be honest.... even more than classic CRPGs such as Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Torment, etc, I'd consider them extremely underrated at any rate.

 

Not that those other things aren't fine RPGs and all though.