Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Sarex]

Same answer applies. I played dao first on a console and it was terribad, which could impact my perceptions. My latest dao run on pc was about as enjoyable as passing a kidney stone.

 

You have a kidney stone fetish?!? O.o

[aluminiumtrioxid]

DA:O was a piss-poor game in a rather dull setting, compounded with a horrible story, repetitive combat and seriously unbalanced classes. Not to mention how it basically required you to bring a healer and a battle mage to be effective, while only providing you with two NPC mages, who, by the way, hated each other's guts.

 

So, no kidney stone fetish is necessary for a proper explanation

Edited February 21, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Quetzalcoatl]

It's amazing how incompetent Bioware is at writing dialogue, despite being one of the longest lived RPG studio's. Why are they trying to pigeonhole everything into categories (Noble/Clever/Direct), and arbitrary categories at that? Why must there be three response options, and always three? There can be situations that call upon only two dialogue options, or maybe half a dozen. 

 

The fact that they had to add explanatory tooltips to dialogue choices is rather telling.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[IndiraLightfoot]

I have never once replayed any crpg, not even my beloved BG 2 + expansion. I click through every conversation branch, lawnmower every map and scour the strategy guide to ensure I see it all in one play through.

That's quite a confession. It's one-time-only people like you that led to the quest devolution that we found in Skyrim, where you indeed can get to every convo, join every faction, and experience everything in one playthrough.

[Humanoid]

I was trying to remember the games I've played through more than once, but it turned into trying to remember games that I finished in the first place. As games get near the end, I tend to simultaneously run out of momentum - kind of like "I've seen all this game has to offer, that's enough already" and abandon it. And I do this for games that I *like*.

[Gfted1]

You paid $30 extra for information you can get for free on the interbutts? And with more accuracy, at that.

 

Which is ignoring the fact that games have been made in which it is impossible to "see it all in one play through." You can't get porked by Benny in New Vegas if you're playing a male Courier, and you can't seduce Gannon into following you as a female.

No, I paid an extra $7.00 for the strategy guide.

 

And you're correct that Ill never see it all but that's fine with me. Ive never had an "evil" play through in any game Ive played so I never see those either. I more meant that I want the best possible outcome, with the best gear and highest attainable power levels, so I like to go through all the options to see whats available.

[Gfted1]

That's quite a confession. It's one-time-only people like you that led to the quest devolution that we found in Skyrim, where you indeed can get to every convo, join every faction, and experience everything in one playthrough.

If you like replaying games then I posit that you develop a minimum of self control and do not take every quest from every source. Its people like you that led to dedicated rest spots, no healing or resurrection, unlimited inventory and ability cooldowns.

[Humanoid]

I had typed "Rest as part of beating content is a stupid concept in an RPG, if the player ever needs to regenerate their resources in order to get through a given area, then that area was created poorly and serves no purpose but to contemptibly waste the player's time." Then I realised I wasn't in that thread. But it's easier to type this text disclaimer around the statement rather than rephrase it in milder terms.

 

 

EDIT: I'll elaborate anyway though. Rest to defeat fatigue should only happen in safe places. Rest as a method of recovery should only happen at home or in a hospital, both under supervision. Content should never be designed around expecting either case to be required, and if a chunk of content ends up requiring rest to get through, then it's a sure sign it's too long as a result of having been divvied up badly, needing to be broken up into multiple parts that are designed to be tackled separately, or that there are too many pointless encounters in it. To do otherwise is to put lipstick on a pig, the pig being that maligned but admirably more honest "hey we can't pace content" design of passive full resource regeneration.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Humanoid

[Keyrock]

I agree with you, Humanoid.  The idea of a party of adventurers breaking out bedrolls and snoozing for a few hours, or even just sitting down for 15 minutes, in the middle of storming a keep is straight up ludicrous.  A lot of having to constantly rest, I suspect, is a product of how ludicrously bad a system Vancian magic is.  

[Humanoid]

Even then I still think it's more a criticism of the encounter design rather than of Vancian magic systems. The level designer ought to know approximately what sort of resources are available to the player and should budget out the encounter design accordingly.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Great post on resting in games, Humanoid!

 

It would fit right in the Blasphemy thread. It's something utterly bonkers with resting as we usually see it. Compare this to say a RTS like COH2, where if your unit gets badly hurt, or a vehicle damaged, you will have to fight hard and sacrifice time and resources to "rest them up" - heal, repair, whatever. And you can only do that by a structure or a vehicle/unit with such functions: medic, mechanic, field hospital at HQs (but the you'll have to press "t" and flee, your unit out of control during the panicked fleeing - it may be killed on their way to the field hospital.

 

Resting the way it worked in NWN2 for instance was horrendous and game-breaking (and I say that, and still think that's the best CRPG series so far).

[Keyrock]

Even then I still think it's more a criticism of the encounter design rather than of Vancian magic systems. The level designer ought to know approximately what sort of resources are available to the player and should budget out the encounter design accordingly.

Absolutely, encounter design is part of it, Vancian magic only compounds the problem greatly.  An aspect of encounter design is mindless, repetitious filler combat (which is to say, 95% of cRPG combat).  It's such a standard feature of cRPGs and so widely accepted as being necessary (it shouldn't be, but it is) that it would take a revolution to exclude it from games (Help me Torment: Tides of Numenera, you're my only hope).  If a developer is going to create a dungeon of any decent length, it's almost as if they have to fill it with a couple dozen filler battles, and with that many filler battles, and with Vancian magic, it's practically impossible to go through that dungeon without copious amounts of resting.

[Humanoid]

The thing is, nameless mooks have their purpose, which is to weaken the player characters. But the notion of rest and regenerating resources render them completely obsolete in one fell swoop. The 'boss' or whatever sole plot-relevant enemy in the dungeon (I use the term broadly here) sends them at you so he himself can fight you when you're not at full strength. But now all those random guards' deaths were in vain, because what does the player do? "Ok, we're at the boss, time to rest so we can fight him at full strength." The entirety of the previous section of the game has instantly become completely pointless and may as well not exist.

 

 

It's like engaging in foreplay but then sleeping overnight before doing the deed in the morning. Geez.

[Tale]

It's amazing how incompetent Bioware is at writing dialogue, despite being one of the longest lived RPG studio's. Why are they trying to pigeonhole everything into categories (Noble/Clever/Direct), and arbitrary categories at that?

I prefer "relevant archetype" to be honest, but it's ultimately variations on a theme. Give the player a consistent set of choices so they can try to be consistent. Especially important in voiced games where the player can't just fill in the gaps between text and delivery.

 

Why must there be three response options, and always three? There can be situations that call upon only two dialogue options, or maybe half a dozen.

It's a combination of consistency, budget, and console UI design. Most dialogue options aren't choices, they're just opportunities to react and express the character. So the player can pick whether he wants to react as a sarcastic **** or a nice guy like he's been doing all along.

 

The fact that they had to add explanatory tooltips to dialogue choices is rather telling.

I blame voicing the PC. Still not a fan. I can see the motive behind wanting to be cinematic and have voiced dialogue, but it's not worth what you lose. They're still using basic shot-reverse shot for dialogues. It's not worth losing what my imagination can contribute, the expanded word count, or the clarity of knowing what's actually said just so the game can look and feel like a cheap TV show (or the Star Wars prequels).

[Quetzalcoatl]

I don't think it's a question of budget, at least not in Bioware's case. For reference, here are the writing guidelines for Baldur's Gate 2, which show a similar mindset: (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131493/baldurs_gate_ii_the_anatomy_of_a_.php?page=2):

 

1. No modern day profanity. This excludes lesser profanity, i.e. damn, hell, bitch, bastard.
2. Each of the dialogue nodes (dialogue piece) spoken by an NPC should be limited to two lines. Only in VERY RARE circumstances are more than two used.
3. All character responses should be one line when they appear in the game. There should be no reason for them to be longer than this.
4. Try not to use accents in dialogue. For certain characters (Elminster, sailor types) it is all right, but for the most part it should be avoided.
5. When using player choices, try to keep the visible number to about three. Two or four are all right, but only when really necessary.
6. When an NPC talks directly to the main player, this should be noted for scripting purposes. Other dialogue should be included for when someone other than the main player talks to this character.
7. Random dialogue should be avoided, or at least used sparingly. Commoners should have only a few random dialogue lines, but there should be several different commoners to talk with.

 

Of course, an RPG doesn't need to have well-designed dialogues to be a good RPG, and often less is more. But it is something Bioware obviously puts a lot of effort in, and I don't think they've ever done a particularly good job of it. 

Edited February 21, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[marelooke]

 

 

Are you going to play Dragon Age: Inquisition?

 

I don't know is the honest answer. I'll see if there's a demo. If it veers back to DA:O territory enough then perhaps.

 

 

Manage thy expectations!  That's how I enjoyed DA2 for multiple playthroughs--I knew it was never going to be an old-school RPG and thus it was quite fun.  Demand that things be that which they are not, and you'll always be disappointed.

 

DA2s combat was terribly consolized and I endured it more than I enjoyed it. It seems DA:I is going in the same direction so I'll probably pass this game up at release unless it gets rave reviews from sources that matter (iow, not your average gaming journalist) and get the "Ultimate Edition" in some Steam sale well after launch (assuming my plate isn't filled by lots of awesome crowdfunded games of course).

 

 

DA:O was a piss-poor game in a rather dull setting, compounded with a horrible story, repetitive combat and seriously unbalanced classes. Not to mention how it basically required you to bring a healer and a battle mage to be effective, while only providing you with two NPC mages, who, by the way, hated each other's guts.

 

So, no kidney stone fetish is necessary for a proper explanation

Mages were broken when DA:O was released, once certain powers were brought back in line it was possible to play through the game without them (I think I went dual wield swordsman + Alistair to tank + Shale to offtank + some rogue).

 

It's amazing how incompetent Bioware is at writing dialogue, despite being one of the longest lived RPG studio's. Why are they trying to pigeonhole everything into categories (Noble/Clever/Direct), and arbitrary categories at that? Why must there be three response options, and always three? There can be situations that call upon only two dialogue options, or maybe half a dozen. 

 

The fact that they had to add explanatory tooltips to dialogue choices is rather telling.

I considered the dialogue wheel and it's limitations adequate for the Mass Effect series, which I've mostly considered an interactive movie. I think it's rather sad that the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel have infested so many other games that would likely be better off without it.

 

It worked for ME and it works in select other games with "fixed" protagonists (eg. Batman games...) but usually when playing an CRPG *I* want to define the main character and his/her voice is the voice *I* make up in my head. Voiced protagonists and the limited options expressiveness  wise (there often are multiple options that lead to exactly the same result in RPG dialogues, but the *way* it is formulated each time matters to me as player) that a dialogue wheel bring force me to play someone else's character.

[Humanoid]

I don't know how true it is, but I assumed the cost cutting measure comes from decoupling the spoken lines from the conversation. Which is, er, an confusing turn of phrase, but what I mean to say is that you can construct the option-response trees without having to worry about doing any matching. You can do the final writing and voice recording dead last in the production process if desired, and you can get away with a lot less communication between the teams since you can have the actors basically say whatever they like, since even if it's Dadaist gibberish it's still having no effect on the conversation outcomes.

 

It kinda reminds me of the filming style long in vogue in Italy where there was no sound recording on set and all the actors were expected to just flap their mouths a bit, what they were saying could be decided afterwards. Although it's at the same time both similar but potentially the inverse of what's going on with the wheel.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Humanoid

[alanschu]

Even then I still think it's more a criticism of the encounter design rather than of Vancian magic systems. The level designer ought to know approximately what sort of resources are available to the player and should budget out the encounter design accordingly.

 

The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available.

 

Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience.

[213374U]

 

The thing is, nameless mooks have their purpose, which is to weaken the player characters. But the notion of rest and regenerating resources render them completely obsolete in one fell swoop. The 'boss' or whatever sole plot-relevant enemy in the dungeon (I use the term broadly here) sends them at you so he himself can fight you when you're not at full strength. But now all those random guards' deaths were in vain, because what does the player do? "Ok, we're at the boss, time to rest so we can fight him at full strength." The entirety of the previous section of the game has instantly become completely pointless and may as well not exist.

 

Hm. What game exactly allows you to rest right before facing a boss but after taking out the trash? (honest question, I don't know)

 

I agree with you that this is frankly stupid and should result in either the villain fleeing or a not-so-surprise attack on the resting party. This also rests on the assumption that the player knows in advance that the next portion of the instance cointains the boss fight. This is either a result of metagaming or of signs placed there on purpose to inform the player. Very little that devs can do about the former, though.

 

 

 

Even then I still think it's more a criticism of the encounter design rather than of Vancian magic systems. The level designer ought to know approximately what sort of resources are available to the player and should budget out the encounter design accordingly.

The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available.

Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience.

 

 

Yep. I'm also wondering how approximately should devs consider the amount of resources a player has at a given point—for instance, Kangaxx in BG2 is accessible in chapter 2, but without resorting to cheap ass tactics that exploit design flaws, taking a shot at him straight out of Irenicus' dungeon is... not recommended. That's basically the devs throwing an encounter in there without any regard for the player's resources other than "it's doable with the stuff you can find throughout the game". And it works beautifully. Why do all encounters have to be tailored around the perceived power level of the player? I hate that.

[Oerwinde]

 

Its an example of the internet making it easy to avoid opposing viewpoints, as I have never heard of anyone thinking the dialogue wheel was a good thing until now.

Oh it's a great thing, but for console players. Would be intersting to find out how many of the people who liked DA2 played it on a console.

That makes sense. I played Mass Effect on console and didn't mind the wheel, but hated it in DA2.

 

That said, I enjoyed DA2, despite pretty much everythig being a step down from DA:O, and I am still very interested in DA:I

[Zoraptor]

It's amazing how incompetent Bioware is at writing dialogue, despite being one of the longest lived RPG studio's. Why are they trying to pigeonhole everything into categories (Noble/Clever/Direct), and arbitrary categories at that? Why must there be three response options, and always three? There can be situations that call upon only two dialogue options, or maybe half a dozen.

Hmm. You could level exactly the same criticism at Alpha Brotocol's Bourne/ Bauer/ Bond three choice system and all. You can have good writing (which is probably the most subjective category in grading a game) using that system. I tend to agree that slavish devotion to a narrow set of technical criteria is a bad thing, but even in something like the Mass Effects they did use only 2 choices, or up to 6 choices. I'd imagine the situation for DAI would be similar. Whether the MEs or AP have good writing is a somewhat different question, though I think most come down on the side of the writing being good, indeed for AP it is generally praised (perhaps excluding the timed ones) and other stuff is criticised.

 

I have far more problem with the 'false choice' dichotomy trichotomy where each of three given choices leads to exactly the same response just to give an illusion that your choice matters.

[alanschu]

I have far more problem with the 'false choice' dichotomy trichotomy where each of three given choices leads to exactly the same response just to give an illusion that your choice matters.

This existed before the dialogue wheel as well.

 

Though I believe there's been more effort in making sure at least the immediate response to any of those lines is still unique, compared to the first occurrence in Mass Effect. It may not be the case throughout the entire game, but I remember doing a quick playthrough of the ME2 prologue just to see, after someone had once suggested that the practice was continued and widely used and it wasn't the case there.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, it's a widespread phenomenon not limited to wheel systems, or a single company.

 

My impression was that ME3 certainly had a lot less fake choice options, but perhaps a commensurate decrease in conversation choice prompts as well, ie more auto or run through dialogue, more time and lines between choices. That is just my impression though.

[Humanoid]

 

 

The thing is, nameless mooks have their purpose, which is to weaken the player characters. But the notion of rest and regenerating resources render them completely obsolete in one fell swoop. The 'boss' or whatever sole plot-relevant enemy in the dungeon (I use the term broadly here) sends them at you so he himself can fight you when you're not at full strength. But now all those random guards' deaths were in vain, because what does the player do? "Ok, we're at the boss, time to rest so we can fight him at full strength." The entirety of the previous section of the game has instantly become completely pointless and may as well not exist.

 

Hm. What game exactly allows you to rest right before facing a boss but after taking out the trash? (honest question, I don't know)

 

I agree with you that this is frankly stupid and should result in either the villain fleeing or a not-so-surprise attack on the resting party. This also rests on the assumption that the player knows in advance that the next portion of the instance cointains the boss fight. This is either a result of metagaming or of signs placed there on purpose to inform the player. Very little that devs can do about the former, though.

 

 

 

Even then I still think it's more a criticism of the encounter design rather than of Vancian magic systems. The level designer ought to know approximately what sort of resources are available to the player and should budget out the encounter design accordingly.

 

The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available.

 

Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience.

 

 

Yep. I'm also wondering how approximately should devs consider the amount of resources a player has at a given point—for instance, Kangaxx in BG2 is accessible in chapter 2, but without resorting to cheap ass tactics that exploit design flaws, taking a shot at him straight out of Irenicus' dungeon is... not recommended. That's basically the devs throwing an encounter in there without any regard for the player's resources other than "it's doable with the stuff you can find throughout the game". And it works beautifully. Why do all encounters have to be tailored around the perceived power level of the player? I hate that.

 

 

Wasn't resting any time you like a key 'feature' of every single IE game? Which brings me to the stated example of BG2. Something like Kangaxx is illustrative enough as a single-encounter segment of content. Exploitative behaviour aside (was it the one you could run in and out of the room without him following you?), you either have the power to beat him, or you don't. You don't partially beat him up, rest, then continue on with the job. And Irenicus' dungeon itself is a good example of a too-long dungeon, it should be balanced so that you finish it without resting, because you shouldn't be able to rest there.

 

The point is whether it's Kangaxx or a Irenicus' Dungeon, each represents a unit of content that, to be remotely believable, should be tackled in one go. It's just that a designer has more freedom in that being optional and off the critical path, it can be tuned to whatever power budget desired as long as that budget can be realistically met  while the content is available.

 

 

Aside, the most absurd example I have of stupid resting mechanics is the last game I played, Might and Magic 10. The final boss was designed around you resting *while* fighting him. A boss that hovers around firing shadowbolts at you while you try to assemble the deus ex machina, but I guess you can ask him to kindly stop shooting for 8 hours while you have a nap.

[Bryy]

 

I have far more problem with the 'false choice' dichotomy trichotomy where each of three given choices leads to exactly the same response just to give an illusion that your choice matters.

This existed before the dialogue wheel as well.

 

Though I believe there's been more effort in making sure at least the immediate response to any of those lines is still unique, compared to the first occurrence in Mass Effect. It may not be the case throughout the entire game, but I remember doing a quick playthrough of the ME2 prologue just to see, after someone had once suggested that the practice was continued and widely used and it wasn't the case there.

 

Seriously. 

 

Flavor Choices existed in BG1.