264 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Wasn't it still a MP questline, though? I vaguely recall seeing something along those lines.

That does seem to be the basic assumption throughout.

[RoboticWater]

Alternatively, you're like me and this just isn't fun - because the world doesn't actually react to these random events. It all happens in a vacuum. 

Totally. Bethesda games are a lot like playing with toys: it's fun to smash everything together, but at the end of the day, it all ends up back on the shelf like it started. The world may be interactive, but it doesn't evolve.

 

That's why Bethesda need more direct competition. Pressure from other developers may force Bethesda to make "radiant AI" actually mean something.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Wasn't it still a MP questline, though? I vaguely recall seeing something along those lines.

 

 

 

Alternatively, you're like me and this just isn't fun - because the world doesn't actually react to these random events. It all happens in a vacuum. 

 

Bethesda makes theme parks, not credible game worlds. You're here to try rides X, Y and Z and have fun while you're at it, then move on. Don't think of it as a coherent world, because the designers sure as hell didn't. Move from setpiece to setpiece and stop asking questions. Then mod the game once you're tired of it, boot it up for 10 minutes as you try out the mod, then forget about the game until the next Big Mod comes out.

 

Skyrim was actually a bit of an improvement, I find. But both their Fallout games fall into this trap headfirst. Which is even more noticeable after New Vegas managed to build one of the most well thought out and coherent game worlds I found in an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That doesn't mean it's not fair game to be criticized.

Ideally you would have the documentation both in and out of the game.

Yes, but BG only supported standard definition displays. It's hard to make that sort of thing readable at 640×480.

I can find the tables for level progressions and everything. They do also explain THAC0(although I still think it's just stupid from a design standpoint) and saving throws. Though some other areas don't mention much.

There's not much to explain. 2nd edition had really simple combat mechanics. Adding the effects of movement, for example, didn't occur until 3E in 2001.

I only had one Ring of Freedom. I was also using Spider's Bane which has the same effect. It wasn't really required that my entire party had them equipped, as I only needed to web spam the enemy before they got close. My ranged characters could stand outside the radius most of the time.

I'd forgotten about Spider's Bane. I didn't typically have any sword wielders in my party. Usually the only non-mage carrying a melee weapon at all was Viconia.

Magic is broken in D&D in general and by extension, broken in Baldur's Gate. It's so stupidly powerful to the point where entire fights revolve around casters.

Given that non-casters don't really have much to do, that doesn't bother me.

Lore in a game should never be set up in such a way that makes one character be that overpowered without some significant drawback to it. I don't believe the drawbacks to mages in AD&D2 are enough to counter-balance how absurdly OP they are.

AD&D wasn't designed to allow reloading. And resting shouldn't happen so frequently.

Sure, I'll just go ahead avoid a natural 20 =P

They don't get to roll to hit until they see you and are in range.

I specifically said nat 20 because it's something that is entirely out of your control and can rather easily kill a level 1 character in D&D. This isn't even just limited to casters.

Low-level survivability is poor.

This is a good feature.

I always found it strange in D&D/Pathfinder that my plate armour can somehow stop repeated blows from a war hammer or other blunt weapon. Those weapons were specifically designed to counter heavy armour.

AD&D always had overly abstract and simpoified mechanics. Some earlier CRPGs modelled things like different armour having different effectiveness against different damage types. I would like games to do that again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Totally. Bethesda games are a lot like playing with toys: it's fun to smash everything together, but at the end of the day, it all ends up back on the shelf like it started.

This is what I've always said. RPGs aren't games. They're toys. They're not something you play; they're something you play with.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bioware was so dedicated to making art after BG2 they created NWN - an MP platform they could nickle and dime people through by selling them overpriced DLC (sorry, premium modules) with an actual campaign so awful is was basically slapped together at the last minute so they could pretend they weren't just selling an MP toolkit for the price of a game.

Hey, I like the NWN OC.

I've played in it extensively, even finishing it once or twice.

[AlanC9]

Totally. Bethesda games are a lot like playing with toys: it's fun to smash everything together, but at the end of the day, it all ends up back on the shelf like it started. The world may be interactive, but it doesn't evolve.
 
That's why Bethesda need more direct competition. Pressure from other developers may force Bethesda to make "radiant AI" actually mean something.

You sure that would work? I thought having no consequences was part of the appeal of Bethesda's approach, though I'm not enough of a fan to tell.

[AlanC9]

AD&D wasn't designed to allow reloading.

Though there are a awful lot of save-or-die mechanics

AD&D always had overly abstract and simpoified mechanics. Some earlier CRPGs modelled things like different armour having different effectiveness against different damage types.

AD&D did have to-hit adjustments for specific weapons against specific armor types, which is how the system handled armor.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Though there are a awful lot of save-or-die mechanics

That made not dying really exciting.

AD&D did have to-hit adjustments for specific weapons against specific armor types, which is how the system handled armor.

Okay.

I knew some types of ememies were resistant to some damage types (piercing weapons against skeletons, for example).

[Monk]

…

Imagine a big publisher scraping together a bunch of talent to create a "Bethesda killer" RPG set in a unique setting (like steampunk or sci-fi) with a slightly smaller scope, tighter mechanics, and an engine that isn't made of elmer's glue and wet noodles. Hell, I'd buy the game if it was a just Skyrim clone not set in a generic fantasy setting. Incidentally though, the Bethesda RPG is precisely the kind of game that requires a developer funded by a big publisher. You don't get Morrowind, Skyrim, or Fallout without big piles of cash.

 

Actually, i think Borderlands by Rockstar fills this role fairly nicely then, ironically, Rage by id (Software), which was a Borderlands-killer(strikethat)-pusher.

[rashie]

They'll make their money anyway. Let's bioware have full control. They'll get their money. They make enough from those darn sports games every year.

With the current fan base, I'm not so sure about that. There's plenty of people around in the community that thought DA:O was far too mechanically rigid and complicated, "clunky and slow" if you will, in their words.

 

Then consider that the same criticisms tossed at inquisition/da2 from origins fans, were done against Origins by BG1/2 fans back in the day. It can be done as indie low budget productions, as proven by Obsidian etc, but I don't think the market is there for such games anymore with an AAA budget.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Bethesda makes theme parks, not credible game worlds. You're here to try rides X, Y and Z and have fun while you're at it, then move on. Don't think of it as a coherent world, because the designers sure as hell didn't. Move from setpiece to setpiece and stop asking questions. Then mod the game once you're tired of it, boot it up for 10 minutes as you try out the mod, then forget about the game until the next Big Mod comes out.

 

Skyrim was actually a bit of an improvement, I find. But both their Fallout games fall into this trap headfirst. Which is even more noticeable after New Vegas managed to build one of the most well thought out and coherent game worlds I found in an RPG.

 

Between DA:I, FO4, and Far Cry 4, I'm starting to think maybe open worlds are overrated. FO4 and FC4 both have all hell breaking loose just about every three minutes, to the point that traveling from one place to another to complete a mission becomes a chore with about 15 detours to deal with raiders, super mutants, eagles, Royal Army, etc. when sometimes I'd like to just get from Point A to Point B and get on with the story. DA:I is a little less hectic, but once the "wow!" factor of the detail and expanse of the environments wears off, it's just "fight enemies, find loot, read notes, rinse and repeat" outside of the main quest. FO3 and ME1 (which I realize is not pure open-world but does have something of that feel to it) are the only games where I felt like exploring was actually worthwhile and unpredictable, and even ME1 has a "this again?" factor with the recycled interiors.

 

As for Bethesda specifically, I've only played FO3 and FO4 all the way through. FO3, I think, does have a reasonably coherent narrative and a world that holds together in terms of theme and atmosphere, if not always in detail. The main drawback is that it isn't clear how people are actually surviving - I can't tell what's driving the provision of goods and services other than the wandering traders and scavengers, even though most of the buildings don't seem to have been looted yet and there are raiders waiting to ambush people all over the place. For example, Lucy West has bought a house in Megaton, but where did she get the money (of which she says she has little left, and her family clearly isn't wealthy when we catch up with them)? How is she now supporting herself given that she does nothing but wander around Megaton all day? 

 

FO4 definitely had a weak narrative, and I thought its biggest problem was that the main plot is driven by an argument about the nature and rights of synths between three factions who seem hell-bent on fighting and killing each other no matter what. If the Courier from FO:NV can convince Enclave veterans, isolationist Brotherhood soldiers, and the NCR to not only drop their animosities but fight on the same side, why can't FO4's Sole Survivor convince the Institute to stop treating synths like slaves and the Brotherhood and the Railroad to leave each other alone? The "theme park" aspect was present, but even worse, it was the same few rides (namely "fight Raiders," "fight Super Mutants," "fight hostile synths," and "fight feral ghouls") over and over again. 

[In Exile]

Bethesda makes theme parks, not credible game worlds. You're here to try rides X, Y and Z and have fun while you're at it, then move on. Don't think of it as a coherent world, because the designers sure as hell didn't. Move from setpiece to setpiece and stop asking questions. Then mod the game once you're tired of it, boot it up for 10 minutes as you try out the mod, then forget about the game until the next Big Mod comes out.

Skyrim was actually a bit of an improvement, I find. But both their Fallout games fall into this trap headfirst. Which is even more noticeable after New Vegas managed to build one of the most well thought out and coherent game worlds I found in an RPG.

The thing is that I don't have an issue per se with the idea of a game as a theme park. I just think the theme park sucks in Bethesda games - all the rides are bad, so who cares I get all this choice? Just because random stuff happens doesn't mean it's good.

[Cyonan]

Yes, but BG only supported standard definition displays. It's hard to make that sort of thing readable at 640×480.

 

You're just making excuses.

 

Diablo was able to put tutorial information in-game in 1996. You can't tell me Baldur's Gate had a viable excuse in 1998.

 

I'd forgotten about Spider's Bane. I didn't typically have any sword wielders in my party. Usually the only non-mage carrying a melee weapon at all was Viconia.

 

In a 6 person party I tend to like to run two tankier frontline fighters, at least one of which usually has swords. This time around I went with a Cavalier, Barbarian, Cleric, Thief, Mage, and Sorcerer.

 

Even though it was EE only, the Cavalier helped quite a bit because they're immune to fear and gets remove fear. Fear was one of two CCs the enemy casters typically spammed, the other being confusion.

 

Given that non-casters don't really have much to do, that doesn't bother me.

AD&D wasn't designed to allow reloading. And resting shouldn't happen so frequently.

 

It bothers me from a game standpoint because it causes issue with combat gameplay.

 

Even in D&D with the vancian spell system, casters are still pretty broken. You can get quite a few spell slots even by around level 4-6, so unless you're running through a large dungeon or the GM is making you do half a dozen fights in a day it's still a workable strategy. The biggest blocker to it is probably that you'd ****** off the other players who aren't immune to the CC you're spamming everywhere, but that's a non issue in BG when I'm playing single-player.

 

If you're making a video game based on those rules, you really need to address those issues. I'm not going to make excuses for a game doing something I thought was poor design.

 

They don't get to roll to hit until they see you and are in range.

Low-level survivability is poor.

 

This is a good feature.

 

I'm sure you've played enough tabletop to know how well "Don't let them get in range or even see you" works as a strategy, which is to say that it frequently doesn't. Admittedly some of this is dependent on your GM. Mine wont hold punches and wont always just make the enemy go after the tank or ones pulling the most damage. I had a caster who generated more threat than the rest of the party combined purely based on her being so cocky she pissed off almost every enemy we ever fought.

 

I don't think low level survivability should be high, but I also think it's poor design to have it set up so that a character can die in 1 hit at level 1 through zero fault of their own unless against something significantly higher level.

 

This is something I thought Pillars of Eternity did quite well. A low level character can still die pretty easily(even at level 7 right now, I don't want my squishy characters being so much as looked at by the enemy), but they aren't dying from a single blow against an equal level opponent.

 

AD&D always had overly abstract and simpoified mechanics. Some earlier CRPGs modelled things like different armour having different effectiveness against different damage types. I would like games to do that again.

 

From what I recall, crushing didn't actually get a benefit against plate in BG. Though in general it would be nice to see weapons get little benefits to reflect what their historical design purpose was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're just making excuses.

Diablo was able to put tutorial information in-game in 1996. You can't tell me Baldur's Gate had a viable excuse in 1998.

I'm not really familiar with Diablo (action combat). How complicated were the mechanics that needed documenting?

Baldur's Gate probably could have put those in the game, though it did ship in 5 CDs. I wonder if itwas a space issue.

I only care about in-game documentation if there isn't any outside the game, and in-game is never as good.

In a 6 person party I tend to like to run two tankier frontline fighters, at least one of which usually has swords. This time around I went with a Cavalier, Barbarian, Cleric, Thief, Mage, and Sorcerer.

Even though it was EE only, the Cavalier helped quite a bit because they're immune to fear and gets remove fear. Fear was one of two CCs the enemy casters typically spammed, the other being confusion.

The classes from Unearthed Arcana were just broken.

I liked to play BG with Thief, Cleric, Mage, Mage, Mage, Mage.

It bothers me from a game standpoint because it causes issue with combat gameplay.

Even in D&D with the vancian spell system, casters are still pretty broken. You can get quite a few spell slots even by around level 4-6, so unless you're running through a large dungeon or the GM is making you do half a dozen fights in a day it's still a workable strategy. The biggest blocker to it is probably that you'd ****** off the other players who aren't immune to the CC you're spamming everywhere, but that's a non issue in BG when I'm playing single-player.

I roleplay the combat. All the characters.

If you're making a video game based on those rules, you really need to address those issues. I'm not going to make excuses for a game doing something I thought was poor design.

I disagree. If you're adapting a tabletop ruleset, your job is to do so as faithfully as possible.

I'm sure you've played enough tabletop to know how well "Don't let them get in range or even see you" works as a strategy, which is to say that it frequently doesn't. Admittedly some of this is dependent on your GM. Mine wont hold punches and wont always just make the enemy go after the tank or ones pulling the most damage.

I wouldn't ever expect an enemy to target my warriors. They should always go after the mages. The threat mechanic that MMOs introduced was idiotic.

I expect characters in a tabletop game to die all the time. If you get to level 7, you've really accomplished something. GMs are always coming up with irritating enemies. One of my favourites was a kobold with a poisoned hand crossbow and a ring of improved invisibility.

GM: Without warning, you suddenly see a poisoned crossbow bolt flying out of the trees. It embeds itself in your shoulder.

PLAYER: Ow. Hey, wait... How do I know it's poisoned?

GM: Because you have to make your save now.

[MrBSN2017]

I have faith that Bioware will deliver.

[Iakus]

 
I expect characters in a tabletop game to die all the time. If you get to level 7, you've really accomplished something. GMs are always coming up with irritating enemies. One of my favourites was a kobold with a poisoned hand crossbow and a ring of improved invisibility.
 

7? Most of my characters are ready to be retired by 5, if they live that long 

 

Heck, we usually do a stint as 0-level commoners before we can earn the right to have a character class!

[Arcian]

There's a word for companies that don't care about how many copies of their product they can sell. The word is "bankrupt."

There's a word for companies who only care about how many copies of their products they can sell. The word is "greedy".

[Cyonan]

I'm not really familiar with Diablo (action combat). How complicated were the mechanics that needed documenting?

Baldur's Gate probably could have put those in the game, though it did ship in 5 CDs. I wonder if itwas a space issue.

I only care about in-game documentation if there isn't any outside the game, and in-game is never as good.

 

Mechanically not as much as a pure RPG(by which I mean not action combat), but there was still quite a few stats and stuff to the game. Even Diablo's in-game stuff could have been better because it was basically just a block of text, which is never very enticing for a lot of players to read. It's also been so long that I can't remember if they covered absolutely everything or not, which would be a criticism against that system if they didn't.

 

I just don't see the point in making excuses for a game, because I reject the notion that it's even possible to make a perfect game. Thus even my favourite game of all time, Half-Life, I can point out criticisms for.

 

The classes from Unearthed Arcana were just broken.

I liked to play BG with Thief, Cleric, Mage, Mage, Mage, Mage.

 

Yeah but the overall strategy still works with base BG classes. The main benefit I enjoyed with EE classes was the Cavalier's immunity to Fear, but that was a defensive measure against enemy casters. A normal Paladin would have served just as well.

 

I roleplay the combat. All the characters.

I disagree. If you're adapting a tabletop ruleset, your job is to do so as faithfully as possible

 

That you RP the combat is great, but it still causes issue with the combat in the game.

 

You should faithfully adapt the ruleset but a different medium requires different mechanics at times. Especially since Baldur's Gate is the one that created the problem of being able to bypass the vancian spell system by sleeping after every fight, it's on their head to fix the problems being amplified by that.

 

I wouldn't ever expect an enemy to target my warriors. They should always go after the mages. The threat mechanic that MMOs introduced was idiotic.

I expect characters in a tabletop game to die all the time. If you get to level 7, you've really accomplished something. GMs are always coming up with irritating enemies. One of my favourites was a kobold with a poisoned hand crossbow and a ring of improved invisibility.

GM: Without warning, you suddenly see a poisoned crossbow bolt flying out of the trees. It embeds itself in your shoulder.

PLAYER: Ow. Hey, wait... How do I know it's poisoned?

GM: Because you have to make your save now.

 

Again it's not about a character dying. It's about the game removing all skill, player or character, from the game and the dice arbitrarily deciding that I died because the enemy rolled a 20 in the first combat.

 

I know that even in Pathfinder they give you a bit of breathing room as you aren't actually dead at 0 HP. I'm not sure if AD&D2 does this as well or if that's just a Baldur's Gate thing.

 

I'm not against a character being fragile. That's an important part of balance in any game.

[AresKeith]

There's a word for companies who only care about how many copies of their products they can sell. The word is "greedy".

 

So a business trying to make a profit?

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

There's a word for companies who only care about how many copies of their products they can sell. The word is "greedy".

And that's why BW is getting their asses tapped by CDPR and Bethesda but we'll see if BW is living up to their reputation by presenting ME:A @ E3.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Mass Effect 1 was the best game, they should do something like that.

They won't though.

[RoboticWater]

You sure that would work? I thought having no consequences was part of the appeal of Bethesda's approach, though I'm not enough of a fan to tell.

I think it would. Unfettered freedom can still be achieved with consequences, there would just need to be a few concessions. I think there's a way to keep the sandbox tomfoolery and domino AI while also giving more weight to certain actions.

 

It would be difficult to describe every change and compromise, but a Fallout:NV would be a good start. Had it not been so buggy, I think it might have done as well as FO3. Of course, it's hard to tell since purchasing data of FO:NV doesn't give us nuanced insights into consumer preferences.

 

There's a word for companies who only care about how many copies of their products they can sell. The word is "greedy".

I dare you to to talk with a handful of EA employees and come away certain that EA cares exclusively about sales. When boiled down to their barest function, yes, companies exist to make money, but the people that comprise these businesses probably care about the art that they create.

 

BioWare isn't literally selling us garbage. There are still genuinely good aspects to every game they put out. If you can't see them, then either you just aren't a fan of the product or you're being willfully obtuse. Either way, you're in no position to claim BioWare is simply greedy.

 

And that's why BW is getting their asses tapped by CDPR and Bethesda but we'll see if BW is living up to their reputation by presenting ME:A @ E3.

Wait, you think Bethesda care less about money than BioWare? By what metric are you judging these companies?

[Sanunes]

 

Wait, you think Bethesda care less about money than BioWare? By what metric are you judging these companies?

 

I bet the metric is how much the company decides to make a game that meets their expectations so if it doesn't have the features or changes they want the company becomes "greedy".  I am looking forward to CDPR with Cyberpunk to see how their fans react to the changes it seems they are taking the game from The Witcher series.

[Il Divo]

I bet the metric is how much the company decides to make a game that meets their expectations so if it doesn't have the features or changes they want the company becomes "greedy".  I am looking forward to CDPR with Cyberpunk to see how their fans react to the changes it seems they are taking the game from The Witcher series.

 

It's definitely funny to hear that perspective. Talking to people after Oblivion and Fallout 3 released? The forums were pretty much the exact same around here: Bethesda sold out, incredibly greedy, no interest in their true fans, so on and so forth.