GreatPretender
Educated
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 190
400 page thread, GO.
That wasn't their goal.Regardless, I think people were way too forgiving about the game throwing out RPG elements, and that attitude had consequences.
It taught Bioware that they could throw out RPG elements and actually receive critical praise for it. "No stats, and not even the RPGCodex cares! Let's go full retard!!"
Mike Laidlaw said:I've said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted. Other stuff was simply a design choice, and some of it was circumstance. There is no way you guys could know exactly what falls on what side of that triangle, and as devs we are not always able to be crystal clear on that kind of thing, especially immediately after a controversial game launch when the community was so far out for blood that they took my suggestion that setting a game that was too easy to a higher difficulty might be a good call was some sort of gigantic, egotistical middle finger to the entire fanbase. That was not a time for reasonable discussion, clearly.
Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula. If I'm going to piss you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.
...
There's also a very large disconnect between where the Dragon Age community thinks we are headed and where we are actually going. As I've noted before, there's two data points in terms of major releases, and I think people have been rather hasty in drawing a line from DAO to DA2 to Devil May Cry. There's a LOT of territory between DA2 and DMC, and if we were truly headed in that direction, we would have made much larger changes. Cut party, remove crafting, one class, etc would all be changes that show a move to action game, but none of those happened. A lot of doom was perceived in the wave combat and changing follower equipment, exaggerated by other faults with the game.
In part, I believe that's a communication error on our part. I know we were not universally reassuring about the direction of DA during the DAII marketing campaign or even here on these forums. There were a number of reasons for that, many of which are not fit for public consumption, but rest assured that we'll take steps to rectify that over the next little while.
Tony Evans said:Early on, I concepted gameplay features that didn't make it into DA2 due to time constraints, but will likely be part of DA3.
Origins was particularly ugly on consoles. The 360 and PS3 versions of DA2 actually do look better, but they did so at the expense of the PC version. The barebones areas and UI are a consequence of trying to squeeze every last bit of memory they can (just look at the UI for the 360/PS3 Origins).Fucking graphics is worse - how did they manage to achieve that I have no idea.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about everything, since I actually did read everything he actually wrote. And some of those Biodrones can be pretty thorough when it comes to systems, just look at all the information presented in the Gameplay and Strategy subforum, painting them all with the same brush does them a disservice.Roguey Oh please, don't quote Laidlaw at me. He's talking only about the most obvious changes made to the game for his Biodrone audience that isn't smart enough to notice the other, more systemic changes. Wave combat and follower equipment, hah!
I'm pretty sure he's talking about everything, since I actually did read everything he actually wrote. And some of those Biodrones can be pretty thorough when it comes to systems, just look at all the information presented in the Gameplay and Strategy subforum, painting them all with the same brush does them a disservice.Roguey Oh please, don't quote Laidlaw at me. He's talking only about the most obvious changes made to the game for his Biodrone audience that isn't smart enough to notice the other, more systemic changes. Wave combat and follower equipment, hah!
Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats. Apparently this wasn't made explicit enough for some players, hence the changes. However, it wasn't their intent for you to only put all your points into one or two stats:So they decided to completely lobotomize an already implemented stat system and change it to "one primary stat per class, increase it on level-up and ignore everything else" because...why? I don't get it. I don't get the statphobia. Stats don't bother millions of MMO players. Stats don't bother millions of Diablo players. Only in single player, narrative-focused RPGs are they suddenly considered to be "too complex".
Peter Thomas said:0rz0 wrote...
- Will there be more balance between specialised and generalist approaches? For example you gave that example of a mage putting everything into magic, but then staying weak in every other area. In origins it was kinda similar, but the huge spellpower enabled the mage to neutralise/obliterate everything, before it coul even come near, effectively negating most drawbacks of such a build. Same for warriors and rogues, who needs defense when you got 50+ armor. And who needs armor when nothing can hit you (ok, I'm exagerationg a bit, but I hope I made the point clear).
In DAO most combat math worked on a linear scale. 5 Armor would negate 5 damage. Similarly with Attack and Defense. This led to a lot of problems in the higher levels where someone who had neglected the stat would get butchered, and someone who specialized would be invulnerable. Combat math now works on percentages with diminishing returns. Even if you have the most armor possible, some will still get through. Even the best defense has a small chance of getting hit, etc. Every class can focus on offense at the expense of defense, but it's part of my job to punish you for that.
Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats.
From that same thread:Actually there are two primaries. And well, that's pretty much how it was in Origins, you make the most effective characters just pumping your damage stats.
I'm not talking about "creating the most effective character". DA:O actually gave you plausible reasons to consider various builds. Cunning and armor penetration, strength was good for both warriors and rogues, etc. Even magic was of marginal utility for a warrior or rogue who enjoyed chugging health poultices. And that's just off the top of my head. In DA2? LOL INCREASE YOUR PRIMARIES
Q3: Will mages be required to invest in Str / Dex this time if they want to fight? Or will simply dumping everything into Magic result in a well rounded arcane warrior/caster again?
Dumping everything into their primary attribute is a viable way to create a character. They will hit a lot and do a lot of damage, but will suffer in every other way. It will work in a lot of situations, but it won't be a well rounded character.
See? DA2 also has plausible reasons to consider various builds. Both games have balance fuck-ups to discourage those builds of course.Need to clarify again, heh. Will a mage's melee capability be determined by both Str and Magic, or Magic alone like with Origin's Arcane Warriors? Will there be a reason for a Mage to invest in Str / Dex / Con / Cunning
A Mage would invest in those other attributes for the benefits they give like Impact Resistance (to not be knocked around by enemy attacks), Critical Chance (you can get spell criticals too), Health (to be more survivable). Not every stat will be necessary for every character, depending on your playstyle.
They wanted to have more strongly-defined class roles.Oh fuck and not to mention the bizarre idea of separating rogue and warrior weapons. WTF???
D&D sucks though so that's a good thing?Roguey Nice try, but I'm aware that mages were fairly separate from warriors/rogues even in DA:O, in terms of stats and mechanics. It was the blatant and artificial separation between warriors and rogues that pissed me off the most in DA2. It was a huge piss on what little D&D influence DA:O had.
That's not how Origins stats worked.Biodrone: "Help me Bioware, I don't know whether I should upgrade my character's strength for more damage or his dexterity for an increased chance to hit!"
Laidlaw: "OMG THIS IS TOO COMPLEX FOR OUR PLAYERS. Let's combine them into one primary stat!"
I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm explaining how not all of DA2's shit was intentional. Some of it was certainly.By the way, just so you know, your apologetics for this game are a bone-headed move and will make everybody here take you less seriously when you defend Josh Sawyer and Project Eternity.
That's not how Origins stats worked.
Strength:
Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10
Dexterity:
Increases melee attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases ranged attack score by 0.5 per point above 10
Increases damage from piercing weapons (per weapon-specific attribute modifiers)
Increases defense by 1 per point above 10
Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10
So a warrior could (and did) neglect dexterity entirely and still get good attack rolls and damage. Rogues could put just enough points in strength to get the best light armor (something that requires prescience) then the rest in dexterity (after then 1.02a patch that corrected the bug that only gave a damage bonus from strength when it was supposed to be 50% strength 50% dexterity). One-stat wonders.
Attack = to-hit chance.Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Mrowak said:I think we simply use different nomenclature here. To me systems is the mechanics. A good system is such that puts all those mechanics into good use creating fun experience - this is its overriding objective and nothing else matters. I agree that designers should think first about the larger picture. However, before we can start working on it we need a set of premises - basic gameplay design or gameplay vision as you call it. (e.g. my system will allow mounted combat). It cannot be created in the void because it would a system for the system's sake - in such cases there's little gameplay. It does happen (I really have the impression that it happened in case of AoD).
whereas Bioware made a very focused effort with the system of their own.
My argument is: you can make a system tailored for the gameplay from the scratch.
The difference is Thief uses its own system.
He is ordered to go from city A to city B. He went on his own. Suddenly he is ambushed by 5 experienced bandits who gut his insides. Was the GM unfair? It depends - maybe there was a way for the player to avoid his demise? How could he accomplish it?
The example I gave you comes from AoD where one failed skill-check rendered my build unplayable - I could not progress because the game did not allow a normal common-sense solution any GM would permit.
but its amatourish implementation in a cRPG.
Infinitron said:What the fuck do you want? What's wrong with a list of requirements? He has to start from somewhere.
If only he had a magical "plan" to make it all better. THE PLAN SAVES ALL! WORSHIP THE PLAN!
I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Attributes_(Origins)Bzzzzzt!
Attack = to-hit chance.Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Furthermore, dexerity increases damage on daggers and bows. So both stats both give you better damage and give you a better hit-chance depending on which weapons you're using.
Post your source for that bolded section.
Greater strength increases the base damage from all weapons except crossbows and mages' staves, and along with dexterity, determines whether a melee attack is successful.
Bzzzzzt!
Attack = to-hit chance.Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
Furthermore, dexerity increases damage on daggers and bows. So both stats both give you better damage and give you a better hit-chance depending on which weapons you're using.
Hey, you can do that in DA2 too. With a rogue. Distinct class roles and all.Still, it did a better job of encouraging you to mix it up and try dual melee/ranged characters, for instance.
Hey, you can do that in DA2 too. With a rogue. Distinct class roles and all.
I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.
Even a "unified whole" starts from somewhere. It does not appear fully formed from thin air.
There is no larger picture for him, just a bunch of random ideas for sub-systems, and a fragile hope based on a blind belief that these sub-systems will create a great system when put together.
Monte Cook is a moron. Only a moron would put bad choices in a system on purpose. Good thing Josh Sawyer isn't.Monte Cook said:Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.
Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)
My argument is: Why would you do such a thing? Seriously, it's very simple: A system needs to form a greater whole. To do that, you can't make all the choices for your game design and then try to design a system around that. You need to start with a vision, then a system.
Look, you're saying: "Design the game, then make a system for it."
I'm saying: "Envision the game, pick a system, then make your game with it."
Your alternative is: "Envision the game, design a system, then make your game with it."
...
I cannot overstate this enough: A good system is a unified whole. A collection of rules that are all build on and correlate to each other. Not a bunch of game mechanics that work isolated from each other in some game developers mind.