264 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

They don't need to work the same way to produce similar outcomes when viewed from the outside.

And we also don't need the CPU to behave as players would. A strategy game isn't betterwjen played against human opponents, just different. Why can't the CPU behave differently?

I want to implement the rules the same way, not the player behaviour. Ideally, at some point, we'll end up with fully interactive environments where we can do what we like even if the developers didn't foresee it. But a major stumbling block there is that the developers have to be willing to let us break the game. Bethesda took Levitation out of the TES games starting with Oblivion, because we could easily break the game with it. That was, in my eyes, a mistake.

They should not be trying to protect us from ourselves.

 

The CPU doesn't need to behave as a player would, but the ruleset needs to be changed accordingly to accommodate that. This was my original point.

 

Which my point still stands. When adapting a ruleset for a medium it wasn't originally designed for, you need to make adjustments for the new medium. In this case, you need to adjust for the fact that every other player and the GM has been replaced by a machine.

 

Levitate was actually removed because of a change in how the technology of the game worked. Starting with Oblivion major cities were no longer a part of the main map, but required a loading screen to enter. It would have created a scenario where levitating over the walls of a major city would result in you being in just an empty husk of a city.

 

It was protecting the game from us, not protecting us from ourselves.

 

But mine do. The silent dialogue more closely resembled real world conversations than the voice dialogue does. By voicing the PC, BioWare managed to make their CPU behaviour less human-like.

 

We've already been through this so there isn't much to say other than that I don't think silent protagonist offered all the benefits you do.

 

Of course you can. I can do the same with games I like.

I try not to do that, however, because criticism of a game tends to be interpreted as criticism of every aspect of that game. Note how BioWare ran away from everything that made DA2 DA2, but some of those new features in DA2 were good features.

 

People who think me criticizing one aspect of a game means I'm criticizing all of it are fools.

 

I also generally don't believe BioWare cuts stuff en masse just because people complained about a few specific features. There was a lot of criticisms leveled at every aspect of Dragon Age 2.

 

Those numbers have a direct in-game effect. What evidence do we have that they don't exist in the game?

How about experience points?

 

Since XP is outside of the game world, characters should be unaware of the exact XP they are at.

 

They should however be aware that as the adventure goes on, they become more experienced and better at what they're doing. Just not aware of "I need 50 more XP to reach level 5".

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

My point, which you hardly discredited, is developers who have long development cycles tend to have the best results. Regardless of your feelings on Bethesda, Blizzard, or Bungie, all of their games are highly successful. When BioWare started rushing their games on a 18 month cycle, that's when the quality started dropping. BioWare hasn't really lost their talent. What BioWare lost was its appreciation of time and making ambitious games.

 

And yet Inquisition had a development cycle far long than 18 months; if we assume they started work on it shortly after DA2 released which seems reasonable to me, DA:I had 3 and a half years of development time, from March 2011 to November 2014. And whatever faults Inquisition had, to me it definitely feels like an ambitious game.

[In Exile]

And yet Inquisition had a development cycle far long than 18 months; if we assume they started work on it shortly after DA2 released which seems reasonable to me, DA:I had 3 and a half years of development time, from March 2011 to November 2014. And whatever faults Inquisition had, to me it definitely feels like an ambitious game.

 

And NWN1 was an ambitious game - a LAN based MP game with no party that totally abandoned everything about it's previous audience. Or JE - a totally ambitious game too. Or what about the ambition in (if you take the negative view) reworking everything about the critical success DA:O to align with your vision of RPG experiences in DA2? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The CPU doesn't need to behave as a player would, but the ruleset needs to be changed accordingly to accommodate that. This was my original point.

I'm saying change neither.

Which my point still stands. When adapting a ruleset for a medium it wasn't originally designed for, you need to make adjustments for the new medium. In this case, you need to adjust for the fact that every other player and the GM has been replaced by a machine.

Then it's not the same game.

Levitate was actually removed because of a change in how the technology of the game worked. Starting with Oblivion major cities were no longer a part of the main map, but required a loading screen to enter. It would have created a scenario where levitating over the walls of a major city would result in you being in just an empty husk of a city.

It was protecting the game from us, not protecting us from ourselves.

It amounts to the same thing.

TES had an established ruleset. It should stick with that ruleset.

And you could still climb over the walls to see inside those cities. They were there; they just didn't have the right textures loaded. Skyrim prevented this by putting invisible walls around the cities.

We've already been through this so there isn't much to say other than that I don't think silent protagonist offered all the benefits you do.

I know you don't. But I do. That's why it's relevant to this discussion.

We don't need to discuss it further, but I am going to mention it from time to time.

People who think me criticizing one aspect of a game means I'm criticizing all of it are fools.

Yes. Also known as people generally.

I also generally don't believe BioWare cuts stuff en masse just because people complained about a few specific features. There was a lot of criticisms leveled at every aspect of Dragon Age 2.

I think the level design was really good. Also the plot structure. DA2 is the only BioWare game since BG to hide the main quest from you, rather than presenting it to you in a clear and obvious way. The tactics system was also a significant improvement over DAO.

DA2 did a small number of things really well.

Since XP is outside of the game world, characters should be unaware of the exact XP they are at.

They should however be aware that as the adventure goes on, they become more experienced and better at what they're doing. Just not aware of "I need 50 more XP to reach level 5".

Should Shepard be aware of the 75% XP penalty for killing enemies with the Mako?

It dramatically reduced her rate of advancement. I think she should.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually, I'd imagine that it takes less time to note specific mechanics as you go than it does to look through and internalize an entire RPG rule set.

The time units aren't equivalent, though. Having to play the game to lesrn the rules requires that you be in the game. Reading a book can be done anywhere. Playing the game also exposes you to spoilers, even though you're not really playing the game yet, you're just learning it.

I need to be confident I understand the rules before I fan create a character I care about, because the rules will inform the character creation.

Sylvius, you're the king of making up nonsense to explain incongruities with NPC dialog, so how about you tell me?

Peoplr misunderstand my examples.

I don't make up nonsense to explain incongruities with NPC dialogue. I only do that here to illustrate how easy it would be for people who feel the need to draw baseless conclusions about meaning or intent. If you need to make up details about an NPC, make one up that supports your preferred style of gameplay.

But I don't actually do that. NPCs work because people are compex and unpredictable beings. Hit points, however, are an incredibly simple system. If I look at a game like DA2, where Hawke and companions do vastly more damage than the enemies do, and the enemies have vastly more hit points than Hawke does, I can see how someone might think that's good for gameplay (they're wrong, but I can see the argument), but the consequence would be that fights between NPCs would never end, as they'd be unable to do enough damage to each other to ever make a difference. DA2's ruleset should eliminate armed conflict in thr setting, unless Hawke's team is involved.

Fine, but that doesn't make the game impossible to play otherwise.

It makes it less fun to play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why would we need to metagame?

If ever you apply knowledge learned prior to a reload, you're metagaming.

Again, let's apply this standard to real life: people observe physical phenomena they can't immediately explain all the time. It doesn't stop them from living their lives. Maybe your character believes he can shield bash every enemy by the laws of physics - until he comes across one he can't.

And of that one kills him, he can't ever learn from that. He's dead.

If you reload, your character now doesn't have that information.

[Sartoz]

And yet Inquisition had a development cycle far long than 18 months; if we assume they started work on it shortly after DA2 released which seems reasonable to me, DA:I had 3 and a half years of development time, from March 2011 to November 2014. And whatever faults Inquisition had, to me it definitely feels like an ambitious game.

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

 

The main reason the game was delayed for over a year was the decision by Bio to switch to the frostbite engine. Frostbite was design for shooter games and the Bio team's tools could not be incorporated into the new engine. Bio had no choice but to adapt the engine to suit the RPG requirements as well as develop new tools for their cinematics integration.

 

Here is an explanation from the tech director Jacques Lebrun why and what had to be done, because of that decision.

source: http://www.frostbite...ostbite-engine/

[RoboticWater]

The time units aren't equivalent, though. Having to play the game to lesrn the rules requires that you be in the game. Reading a book can be done anywhere. Playing the game also exposes you to spoilers, even though you're not really playing the game yet, you're just learning it.

Assuming that the time you spend gaming isn't the only amount of free time you have in your day, then sure, those time units aren't necessarily equivalent, but time spent preparing to game is still time spent.
 

I need to be confident I understand the rules before I fan create a character I care about, because the rules will inform the character creation.

And precise enemy health mechanics factor into that?
 

Peoplr misunderstand my examples.

I don't make up nonsense to explain incongruities with NPC dialogue. I only do that here to illustrate how easy it would be for people who feel the need to draw baseless conclusions about meaning or intent. If you need to make up details about an NPC, make one up that supports your preferred style of gameplay.

I don't misunderstand you. I just firmly believe that what you're doing is making up nonsense. You haven't convinced me otherwise.
 

But I don't actually do that. NPCs work because people are compex and unpredictable beings.

And the universe is a complex and unpredictable place.
 

Hit points, however, are an incredibly simple system. If I look at a game like DA2, where Hawke and companions do vastly more damage than the enemies do, and the enemies have vastly more hit points than Hawke does, I can see how someone might think that's good for gameplay (they're wrong, but I can see the argument), but the consequence would be that fights between NPCs would never end, as they'd be unable to do enough damage to each other to ever make a difference. DA2's ruleset should eliminate armed conflict in thr setting, unless Hawke's team is involved.

Maybe how you perceive enemy health is incorrect. Maybe there's an aura around Hawke that changes the biology of everything around him. The cutscenes show NPCs dispatching each other with ease, so clearly something else is going on.
 

It makes it less fun to play.

No it doesn't.
 

And of that one kills him, he can't ever learn from that. He's dead.

If you reload, your character now doesn't have that information.

Yes, but why would one failed shield bash kill you? You fail the bash, take a hit, and come back with a better plan on the next swing. And why do you care? You seem to be the type that likes end your campaigns before the game's story is over. If your character is doomed to always die because he didn't know that he couldn't shield bash a certain opponent (and not deal with the consequences), then that campaign is doomed.

 

Should Shepard be aware of the 75% XP penalty for killing enemies with the Mako?

It dramatically reduced her rate of advancement. I think she should.

Shepard should note that killing enemies outside the Mako is more difficult and yields more combat practice. The exact value is irrelevant to the ultimate behavior.

[Cyonan]

I'm saying change neither.

Then it's not the same game.

 

They would no longer be identical, correct.

 

I'm less concerned with following the exact ruleset that wasn't designed for use with PCs and more concerned with making the best video game you can. That means certain liberties need to be taken with the ruleset to adapt it to a new medium.

 

It amounts to the same thing.

TES had an established ruleset. It should stick with that ruleset.

And you could still climb over the walls to see inside those cities. They were there; they just didn't have the right textures loaded. Skyrim prevented this by putting invisible walls around the cities.

 

The point is that they had to compromise. What they were trying to do with Oblivion just wasn't possible on the hardware of the time without putting cities into separate cells in the game world and using just basics for view outside the walls. The fact that you could climb over the walls was a bug that they took steps to remedy in Skyrim.

 

It sounds like your opposed to change for the sake of not changing when it comes to rulesets which is something I'll always find stupid. Always have a good reason for the change, but don't ever refuse to change something simply because "that's how it's always been".

 

I think the level design was really good. Also the plot structure. DA2 is the only BioWare game since BG to hide the main quest from you, rather than presenting it to you in a clear and obvious way. The tactics system was also a significant improvement over DAO.

DA2 did a small number of things really well.

 

The thing is the level design got heavily criticized because it was the same couple of maps repeated throughout the entire game. The actual level design itself wasn't bad, but it wasn't going to work for the big sprawling maps that Inquisition wanted to use(which has solid level design itself).

 

From a story standpoint the plot structure wasn't set up very well. The whole game's story feels very schizophrenic because each of the acts are so separated from one another. I know you probably don't care about the story itself as much, but there's no denying that BioWare does care a great deal about the story.

 

I thought the tactics system in Inquisition was a step backwards from both DA:O and DA2. It simplified it way too much.

 

Should Shepard be aware of the 75% XP penalty for killing enemies with the Mako?

It dramatically reduced her rate of advancement. I think she should.

 

Shep should be aware of the fact that they become less experienced with their main abilities and weapons when using the Mako instead of them. They shouldn't be aware of the fact "I gain 75% less XP when using the Mako".

 

The character should be aware of the effects on the game universe the mechanics have, just not the specifics of the mechanics themselves.

[Il Divo]

If ever you apply knowledge learned prior to a reload, you're metagaming.
And of that one kills him, he can't ever learn from that. He's dead.

If you reload, your character now doesn't have that information.

 

That's a really small bubble to confine ourselves to. Yeah, if your character immediately dies you can't use that knowledge - but note that Dark Souls doesn't actually allow reloads - there's a single continuity. Even if we apply your standard to Bioware, it's party-based. Most Bioware games only make you reload if the entire party wipes (or the PC in some cases). Basically, your standard only applies in the confines of having to reload. That's something to consider, but still doesn't defend your larger principle regarding the asymmetrical mechanics requiring metagaming. A character being immune to shield bash doesn't as a rule force the player to reload. 

 

Even if it was an issue, we could just apply your standard where the character learns about the death move off screen. As Roboticwater mentioned, the general strength of your position is that the world is as constant or transient as you let it be - it seems like you're backing off from that here. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's a really small bubble to confine ourselves to. Yeah, if your character immediately dies you can't use that knowledge - but note that Dark Souls doesn't actually allow reloads - there's a single continuity. Even if we apply your standard to Bioware, it's party-based. Most Bioware games only make you reload if the entire party wipes (or the PC in some cases). Basically, your standard only applies in the confines of having to reload. That's something to consider, but still doesn't defend your larger principle regarding the asymmetrical mechanics requiring metagaming. A character being immune to shield bash doesn't as a rule force the player to reload.

Even if it was an issue, we could just apply your standard where the character learns about the death move off screen. As Roboticwater mentioned, the general strength of your position is that the world is as constant or transient as you let it be - it seems like you're backing off from that here.

True, but I won't retcon because ensuring the logical coherence of the character after that is too computationally complex. I would need to go throigj every prior decision given this new information to determine whether it was possible for my character to make the same choice. And if it wasn't, I would need to reload back to that point and play from there.

I actually did this in my first DAO playthrough, backing up 25 hours to resolve an inconsistency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Assuming that the time you spend gaming isn't the only amount of free time you have in your day, then sure, those time units aren't necessarily equivalent, but time spent preparing to game is still time spent.

I'd like to have more options about how to spend my time.

And precise enemy health mechanics factor into that?

The consequences of the precise health mechanics do, yes.

I don't misunderstand you. I just firmly believe that what you're doing is making up nonsense. You haven't convinced me otherwise.

It's the people who think they can discern meaning from tone are the ones who are making things up.

I simply choose not to do that. When it comes to interpreting NPCs, I'm actively not making things up, nonsense or not.

And the universe is a complex and unpredictable place.

Maybe how you perceive enemy health is incorrect. Maybe there's an aura around Hawke that changes the biology of everything around him.

That makes Hawke the chosen one.

The cutscenes show NPCs dispatching each other with ease, so clearly something else is going on.

In cases of disagreement between the mechanics and cutscenes, I go with the mechanics.

I mostly don't watch the cutscenes. The best way for me to deal with unwanted non-interactive content is to ignore it.

Yes, but why would one failed shield bash kill you? You fail the bash, take a hit, and come back with a better plan on the next swing. And why do you care? You seem to be the type that likes end your campaigns before the game's story is over. If your character is doomed to always die because he didn't know that he couldn't shield bash a certain opponent (and not deal with the consequences), then that campaign is doomed.

Yes, but if I can't make a character who can get more than a few hours into the game, that game isn't a very good purchase for me.

Shepard should note that killing enemies outside the Mako is more difficult and yields more combat practice. The exact value is irrelevant to the ultimate behavior.

The exact value could be easily measured over time.

[Statare]

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

 

The main reason the game was delayed for over a year was the decision by Bio to switch to the frostbite engine. Frostbite was design for shooter games and the Bio team's tools could not be incorporated into the new engine. Bio had no choice but to adapt the engine to suit the RPG requirements as well as develop new tools for their cinematics integration.

 

Here is an explanation from the tech director Jacques Lebrun why and what had to be done, because of that decision.

source: http://www.frostbite...ostbite-engine/

 

The original post in this quote chain was saying BioWare's games became limited and unambitious because they stuck to an 18 month development cycle forced on them, and then @Giantdeathrobot pointed out that Inquisition got a lot more than 18 months. Switching engines and adding a boat load of features specifically for your game to said engine is an ambitious project, and this new engine allowed BioWare to do things they had never really done (world building, expansive environments, environmental reactivity), etc. So, despite a lot of the probable work of developing DA:I going into switching to Frostbite, that doesn't diminish that Inquisition was very ambitious for BioWare, and was given a lot of freedom by EA, because even BioWare's switch to Frostbite was a choice made by BioWare and not EA (according to that article). 

 

So I think the critique of the statements of the original post in this quote chain still stands: that BioWare is ambitious, they are taking their time on things (as DA:I and ME:A both seem to indicate), and they are not playing it safe, doing the same thing over and over again, but are willing to experiment and be ambitious from one game to the next (just look at the differences between DA:O, DA2, DA:I, each game has a unique way of developing the protagonist and each game seems more interested in offering a unique experience than trying to be exactly the same as the game before it).

[Saladinbob1]

Calling Mass Effect just an iteration on jade Empire is entirely reductionist. Yeah, the cinematic RPG isn't a new concept, but an RPG/TPS hybrid? That's pretty original. While that genre might not be completely new, BioWare's incredibly competent rendering of that genre was. That's not even mentioning mechanics like the power wheel and the smaller innovations I brought up earlier.

 

What do you think KoTOR was? There is fundamentally no difference between KoTOR that came out in 2003, and Dragon Age Inquisition launched eleven years later. For more than a decade, Bioware have stagnated, offering no creativity in their development, sticking to the same tried and tested systems, all the while other companies have breathed new life into the RPG genre through the use of originality in their development.

 

In all that time the only new system introduced was the introduction of the dialogue wheel, their ridiculous binary approach to morality. Fresh at the time of ME1's launch, rather stale now in 2016 when so many other games have moved on from that to a more realistic nuanced approach.

 

I'm not attacking Bioware, there are legitimate business arguments to be made for sitting in one's comfort zone (just ask Hollywood), but if MEA turns out to be an iteration of DAI then it will be some fourteen years after their last truly original game and that I feel would be a missed opportunity for the developer.

[BioWareMod10]

As this discussion has deviated from its original topic, we're going to go ahead and close it.  As a reminder, please keep replies on topic, civil and constructive.