769 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I find it hard to put into words what a terrible idea this is. Icons or no icons, a game isn't supposed to be a social awkwardness simulator.

It should be a conversation simulator. That's how I think conversations work (or don't work, as the case may be).

Otherwise we just get to choose how the NPC will react. Where's the fun in that?

If you can't understand the constrains of dialogue in video games, just stick to PnP.

I play CRPGs because I want to play single-player RPGs. PnP is multiplayer.

The ideal CRPG is one that recreates the experience of playing a tabletop RPG, but without the need for other players. All this action combat and storytelling and fancy graphics just get in the way.

Even dialogue with mute protagonists is limited to some degree,
it's not like there is a difference in principle, only the degree of choice.(5 choices vs. 3 choices, when often those 5 are not truly different)

If they contain different words, they are different.

Again, I don't consider the NPC reaction when choosing dialogue options because I have no idea what the NPC reaction will be.

And that's just the thing, most video games are not intended for this, and while you can use them for whatever you want, it's useless to complain about the fact that they are not optimized for it.

They don't need to be optmized for it. Just allow it, even in a suboptimal way. Like DAI or DAO does.

You'll note that I'm not asking them to make NWN again (though that would be great).

And I'm not asking anything of "most video games". I ask it only of products that purport to be CRPGs. If they're going to claim to be RPGs, they have to deal with me asking for the features that would suit that label.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd understand that sentiment if it were solely towards simulation games. But games that fall under other genres? Well, if games were just simulations, and didn't tell stories, then I don't think there'd be much of a gaming industry to speak of.

RPGs can be games (fun to play, with engaging gameplay), or they can be stories (fun to watch, with an engaging authored narrative), or they can be simulations (fun to experiment with, with coherent rules). Those categories are not mutually exclusive.

I prefer simulationist design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think that this is the basic problem with the argument. Focus on characters and stories is basically BioWare's bag, so anyone looking for a simulation to run is going to have to look elsewhere.

This isn't always the case. They drift around.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So Sylvius the Mad as far as role playing you can choose to have a character that doesn't know about elf root or choose a character who does know about elf root.

I assume that when choosing a difficulty setting you want it to be realistic as possible? Or is that a choice you make?

I prefer the difficulty setting that offers the most symmetrical mechanics.

For example, I don't enable friendly fire in DAI because the enemies aren't subject to friendly fire. If they were, I would turn it on for me as well.

[Enigmatick]

I prefer the difficulty setting that offers the most symmetrical mechanics.

For example, I don't enable friendly fire in DAI because the enemies aren't subject to friendly fire. If they were, I would turn it on for me as well.

They got melee FF in DAI?

[slimgrin]

Why discuss this? A silent protagonist is for isometric RPGs only. 

[Laughing_Man]

Why discuss this? A silent protagonist is for isometric RPGs only. 

 

Well, previous Fallout games had it as well...

 

But yeah, in general sarcastic Hawke brought me firmly into the voiced protagonist camp - at least for AAA games, as their focus is more cinematic.

[Enigmatick]

Why discuss this? A silent protagonist is for isometric RPGs only. 

That's a terrible line of thinking.

 

Also JRPGS exist.

[KaiserShep]

This isn't always the case. They drift around.

Certainly not in any of the DA or ME games.

[Laughing_Man]

Also JRPGS exist.

 

...

 

That's a myth. 

[Laughing_Man]

I prefer the difficulty setting that offers the most symmetrical mechanics.

For example, I don't enable friendly fire in DAI because the enemies aren't subject to friendly fire. If they were, I would turn it on for me as well.

 

DAI was actually terrible in matters of symmetry. The enemy had access only to very few useless or cheap abilities.

Enemy mages were a literal joke, instead of representing danger I was only annoyed by the knowledge that now I had to chase them around as they teleport and deploy the same useless mines again and again.

 

In DA:O, when I opened a door at the Circle and a fireball was launched at my party, it was a literal "oh s***" moment.

 

I hope to see more symmetry in abilities in ME:A.

[sjsharp2011]

At this point, I would find a silent protagonist distracting.  I found it occasionally distracting in DA:O even though it was the norm in RPG's at that point.  It's one of those issues where you will never be able to please everyone.  A lot of developer choices are like that because gamers' tastes are so varied.  You can make a compelling argument for doing it one way and an equally valid one for doing it the other.  In spite of the persistent misuse of the word, there is no objective standard when it comes to personal tastes.

Yeah I think I would find that distracting too now considering most games now aer moving away from Silent protags

[GaroTD]

I hate silent protagonists. They just seem awkward and out of place. Btw I still have my unpopular opinion that Mark Meer voice acting was fine and I liked it. I jest like hearing voice of main character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DAI was actually terrible in matters of symmetry.

Yes it was. But I'll take what I can get.

DAO's symmetry was far better than either DA2 or DAI.

The ME series has been awful for mechanical symmetry.

BioWare's best showing in this area was probably NWN, but then they patched out the symmetrical friendly fire in version 1.03

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's a terrible line of thinking.

Also JRPGS exist.

Not RPGs. Not relevant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They got melee FF in DAI?

No. That was only in DA2 (and one of DA2's best features).

I'd love to see melee friendly fire come back.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why discuss this? A silent protagonist is for isometric RPGs only.

Why?

Moreover, that's just not true. BioWare alone has made 4 different RPGs that weren't isometric and weren't voiced (NWN, KotOR, JE, DAO).

Also, the TES games have all had silent protagonists. And any game with decent modding capacity arguably supports it (such as FO4, which I have only played silent).

[KaiserShep]

I hate silent protagonists. They just seem awkward and out of place. Btw I still have my unpopular opinion that Mark Meer voice acting was fine and I liked it. I jest like hearing voice of main character.

 

 

I wouldn't say that this opinion is unpopular. 

[Pasquale1234]

Also, the TES games have all had silent protagonists. And any game with decent modding capacity arguably supports it (such as FO4, which I have only played silent).

That damned VO is the primary reason I've yet to purchase or play FO4. Learning that it was voiced threw a huge wet blanket on my initial excitement for the game's impending release.

It is true that it can be modded out (and as I understand it, that was the very first mod available), but it still doesn't change the fact that the dialogue was written for a voiced PC, which creates a lot of limitations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Certainly not in any of the DA or ME games.

I think DAO and DAI did a pretty good job of supporting simulationist gameplay and letting players experience the characters and story as they saw fit and at their own pace.

A tightly woven narrative gets in the way, but a looser narrative gives the players more options about how they experience it. If you want to play DAO as a narrative-based character-driven game, you can, but you don't have to.

[Cyonan]

DAI was actually terrible in matters of symmetry. The enemy had access only to very few useless or cheap abilities.

Enemy mages were a literal joke, instead of representing danger I was only annoyed by the knowledge that now I had to chase them around as they teleport and deploy the same useless mines again and again.

 

In DA:O, when I opened a door at the Circle and a fireball was launched at my party, it was a literal "oh s***" moment.

 

I hope to see more symmetry in abilities in ME:A.

 

To be fair I don't think not having symmetry is a bad thing, but those enemy specific mechanics have to be designed well.

 

Especially with boss units. Personally I'd rather a boss fight have unique and interesting mechanics rather than "Oh look, the same thing I've been fighting except with 5000% more hit points".

 

The mages in DA:I just had a weak selection of spells to use against us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That damned VO is the primary reason I've yet to purchase or play FO4. Learning that it was voiced threw a huge wet blanket on my initial excitement for the game's impending release.

It is true that it can be modded out (and as I understand it, that was the very first mod available), but it still doesn't change the fact that the dialogue was written for a voiced PC, which creates a lot of limitations.

FO4 doesn't have the kind of back and forth exchanges that have marked BioWare's voiced PC games. Combined with the full text dialogue options (which I think was actually an available mod before the no voice mod), FO4's dialogue is typical of a Bethesda game.

The big problem is that the writers have aasumed that you care about the story they've written. They've even gated necessarily tutorials (like crafting) behind plot advancement.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To be fair I don't think not having symmetry is a bad thing, but those enemy specific mechanics have to be designed well.

Especially with boss units. Personally I'd rather a boss fight have unique and interesting mechanics rather than "Oh look, the same thing I've been fighting except with 5000% more hit points".

The mages in DA:I just had a weak selection of spells to use against us.

Having 5000% more hit points would violate symmetry unless there was some sort of exponential progression and the enemy was just a higher level than you.

I want one set of rules for every creature in the game world (like a tabletop RPG), and I want thise rules to be fully documented so the players can read them before they play (like a tabletop RPG).

[Cyonan]

Having 5000% more hit points would violate symmetry unless there was some sort of exponential progression and the enemy was just a higher level than you.

I want one set of rules for every creature in the game world (like a tabletop RPG), and I want thise rules to be fully documented so the players can read them before they play (like a tabletop RPG).

 

If they don't have more HP then my response will be "Wait... was that thing I just 1 shot with my Sniper Rifle supposed to be a boss?".

 

Well documented things is nice, but I would rather enemies be interesting rather than just mimic everything I can do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they don't have more HP then my response will be "Wait... was that thing I just 1 shot with my Sniper Rifle supposed to be a boss?".

I'd feel pretty good about myself if I did that.

Though I also don't really like the idea of boss fights. As much as I thought ME2 made some strange design choices, the boss at the end really drove home that it wasn't my kind of game. As soon as a game is more like God of War than it is like Baldur's Gate, I don't want to play it.

Well documented things is nice, but I would rather enemies be interesting rather than just mimic everything I can do.

If you can do everything in the rules, the ruleset isn't very robust.

I would expect one character, even at max level, to be able to do maybe 25% of everything, and I don’t think the PC should be anywhere max level, even at the end of the game. The rules should go higher than the game does.