360 réponses à ce sujet

[MDT1]

Actually in DA2 I would have prefered a "skip the out of nowhere appearing reinforcement waves"-button over a skip the dialog button. In fact especially considering sidequest there was far to few dialog for my taste.

[mesmerizedish]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Have you considered that the problem is DAII and it's lousy combat implimentation, and not that combat is an unimportant part of the game?

Combat is an important part of the game, but not an essential part. The point of the game is to tell a story, not to let you kill ****. Killing **** is a way to drive the narrative, but not the only way.

That said (and this is an entirely different topic), combat in DAII is the most fun and satisfying gameplay I've ever experienced. I never dread getting into a fight.

So you're saying they should have made DA2 into a movie... and not let us control our character at all. I mean who cares about GAMEPLAY when you buy a videogame.

That is so far from anything I've ever said that I'm not sure you actually speak English. Or you're just making **** up. Can I try?

So, you're saying that movies suck and DAII should have been a movie because DAII sucked, and if DAII sucks and movies suck then they're the same?

[Galad22]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

So you're saying they should have made DA2 into a movie... and not let us control our character at all. I mean who cares about GAMEPLAY when you buy a videogame.

Why does everyone seems to think gameplay equals combat.

This is just not true.

[Kidd]

This thread reminds me of two games I've played recently.

1. Lords of Magic, PC.
It's a game much similar to Age of Wonders and Heroes of Might and Magic. When my army encounters an enemy army, I can click Auto-Battle and skip the tedious trash fight altogether, any time in the game. I can even do this with the final fight in the game. It's there for those who enjoy only the greater picture and don't really care much for the tactical game play in battles. This is still a game, and a great game at that.

2. Radical Dreamers, SNES.
This amazing follow up to the more known A+ jrpg Chrono Trigger is 100% dialogue. Sometimes there are battles, but don't let the game fool you, there is no battle engine. Battles are not different from any time you're exploring. The game might explain the dark hallways your character is sneaking through and allow you to choose which direction you walk. Or the game might explain how your party's mage burns the enemy on your right to a crisp before it asks you what you'll do about the skeleton that is now charging you. But no matter what the text is saying, you're constantly in a "dialogue mode".

This is still a game, and it's an incredibly good game. You have far more choice than you did in the game's predecessor and it's clearly an rpg just like Chrono Trigger, if not even more of an rpg. Yet there is no "game play" if controlling fights directly is the only definition of game play.

Similarly, there does not "need" to be combat in any BioWare game for the game to still be a game. Leave those "watch a film" comments at the door, or go play Call of Duty if you need "game play" so bad

[ankuu]

Even if it's 5 years old, mentality might not have changed

I don't really like her writing but it's just my personal opinion. Still a writer (in general) should be good at what he does, if he can't play video games but can make good stories, that's great. That's why he is employed in the first place. Some VA give life to so many characters in video games yet they don't play them. But it doesn't matter cause they do an awesome job. An example could be Greg Ellis, Cullen's/Anders' VA.

I wouldn't want a skip combat button, but i do agree that in most Bioware games and some others the story is deep, emotional, makes you stay there wanting to see more of it. Buut if combat is everywhere all the time, getting all the little details of the story might be difficult...but there's always a second playthrough!

[wssiimikeyii]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

wssiimikeyii wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Have you considered that the problem is DAII and it's lousy combat implimentation, and not that combat is an unimportant part of the game?

Combat is an important part of the game, but not an essential part. The point of the game is to tell a story, not to let you kill ****. Killing **** is a way to drive the narrative, but not the only way.

That said (and this is an entirely different topic), combat in DAII is the most fun and satisfying gameplay I've ever experienced. I never dread getting into a fight.

So you're saying they should have made DA2 into a movie... and not let us control our character at all. I mean who cares about GAMEPLAY when you buy a videogame.

That is so far from anything I've ever said that I'm not sure you actually speak English. Or you're just making **** up. Can I try?

So, you're saying that movies suck and DAII should have been a movie because DAII sucked, and if DAII sucks and movies suck then they're the same?

I'm just saying you said combat isn't important in DA2, so therefore it would be an equaly 'great' game if it was all dialogue. 

[Aesieru]

Galad22 wrote...

wssiimikeyii wrote...

So you're saying they should have made DA2 into a movie... and not let us control our character at all. I mean who cares about GAMEPLAY when you buy a videogame.

Why does everyone seems to think gameplay equals combat.

This is just not true.

Even at game-design school, which I tried out for a bit, it is a tenet of gameplay.

[Stanley Woo]

let's remember to keep the insults and attacks out of the discussion, please.

[Aesieru]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

This thread reminds me of two games I've played recently.

1. Lords of Magic, PC.
It's a game much similar to Age of Wonders and Heroes of Might and Magic. When my army encounters an enemy army, I can click Auto-Battle and skip the tedious trash fight altogether, any time in the game. I can even do this with the final fight in the game. It's there for those who enjoy only the greater picture and don't really care much for the tactical game play in battles. This is still a game, and a great game at that.

2. Radical Dreamers, SNES.
This amazing follow up to the more known A+ jrpg Chrono Trigger is 100% dialogue. Sometimes there are battles, but don't let the game fool you, there is no battle engine. Battles are not different from any time you're exploring. The game might explain the dark hallways your character is sneaking through and allow you to choose which direction you walk. Or the game might explain how your party's mage burns the enemy on your right to a crisp before it asks you what you'll do about the skeleton that is now charging you. But no matter what the text is saying, you're constantly in a "dialogue mode".

This is still a game, and it's an incredibly good game. You have far more choice than you did in the game's predecessor and it's clearly an rpg just like Chrono Trigger, if not even more of an rpg. Yet there is no "game play" if controlling fights directly is the only definition of game play.

Similarly, there does not "need" to be combat in any BioWare game for the game to still be a game. Leave those "watch a film" comments at the door, or go play Call of Duty if you need "game play" so bad

Yes but auto-battle usually makes you lose more than you would if you fought yourself.

[wssiimikeyii]

Galad22 wrote...

wssiimikeyii wrote...

So you're saying they should have made DA2 into a movie... and not let us control our character at all. I mean who cares about GAMEPLAY when you buy a videogame.

Why does everyone seems to think gameplay equals combat.

This is just not true.

What do you consider gameplay?

[the_one_54321]

Galad22 wrote...
Why does everyone seems to think gameplay equals combat.

This is just not true.

It's not just fighting. It is conflict mitigation. Without conflict, it is not a game. Games require a goal, obstacles to reaching that goal, and a manner by which to overcome those obstacles. Games = conflict mitigation. Otherwise it's just an activity. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Again, the Visual Novel industry is pretty big and there is some really really excellent writing to be found there.
(for those tha are uninitiated, a Visual Novel is basically DA dialog trees and no other game play)

[Galad22]

Aesieru wrote...


Even at game-design school, which I tried out for a bit, it is a tenet of gameplay.

But it is still not same thing as gameplay.

Only one part of it.

[mesmerizedish]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

I'm just saying you said combat isn't important in DA2, so therefore it would be an equaly 'great' game if it was all dialogue. 

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Combat is an important part of the game

You're right. You did understand me after all.

That said, if DAII didn't have a single combat scene in it, I do think it could still be a great game. But it does have combat, so what are you arguing about?

[Kidd]

Aesieru wrote...

Yes but auto-battle usually makes you lose more than you would if you fought yourself.

Definitely true, since the AI isn't half as smart as most players. But why do you point that out?

[wssiimikeyii]

Aesieru wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

This thread reminds me of two games I've played recently.

1. Lords of Magic, PC.
It's a game much similar to Age of Wonders and Heroes of Might and Magic. When my army encounters an enemy army, I can click Auto-Battle and skip the tedious trash fight altogether, any time in the game. I can even do this with the final fight in the game. It's there for those who enjoy only the greater picture and don't really care much for the tactical game play in battles. This is still a game, and a great game at that.

2. Radical Dreamers, SNES.
This amazing follow up to the more known A+ jrpg Chrono Trigger is 100% dialogue. Sometimes there are battles, but don't let the game fool you, there is no battle engine. Battles are not different from any time you're exploring. The game might explain the dark hallways your character is sneaking through and allow you to choose which direction you walk. Or the game might explain how your party's mage burns the enemy on your right to a crisp before it asks you what you'll do about the skeleton that is now charging you. But no matter what the text is saying, you're constantly in a "dialogue mode".

This is still a game, and it's an incredibly good game. You have far more choice than you did in the game's predecessor and it's clearly an rpg just like Chrono Trigger, if not even more of an rpg. Yet there is no "game play" if controlling fights directly is the only definition of game play.

Similarly, there does not "need" to be combat in any BioWare game for the game to still be a game. Leave those "watch a film" comments at the door, or go play Call of Duty if you need "game play" so bad

Yes but auto-battle usually makes you lose more than you would if you fought yourself.

I'm assuming these games involve an army, not a group of people.

Mount&Blade has this, but that is because you have an ARMY aswell and they can go in without you and fight with alot of casualities but no risk of you being lost. 

So skipping combat in a game where you get most of the kills is a good idea compared to having a 100+man army do it for you?

Auto-Skipping in DA2 would cause you to die and restart combat. But in huge dungeons, you'd just be skipping an entire boss battle and everything... Where's the experience in that.

[wssiimikeyii]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

wssiimikeyii wrote...

I'm just saying you said combat isn't important in DA2, so therefore it would be an equaly 'great' game if it was all dialogue. 

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Combat is an important part of the game

You're right. You did understand me after all.

That said, if DAII didn't have a single combat scene in it, I do think it could still be a great game. But it does have combat, so what are you arguing about?

Combat is an important part of the game, but not an essential part. 

That's a contradiction.

Like a scottish-korean 

[entr0py]

What they really need is a PAUSE dialogue button. The lack of one is as mind boggling and infuriating an oversight as not having a way to pause during gameplay. Any time the phone rings during a dialogue scene I come back not having any freaking clue how much I missed.

[Aesieru]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Yes but auto-battle usually makes you lose more than you would if you fought yourself.

Definitely true, since the AI isn't half as smart as most players. But why do you point that out?

You sacrifice something for it, which is a point... an auto-battle is trying to actually get you to play the game instead of sacrificing so much when you might get through a battle with no damage whatsoever.

Skipping bosses I don't agree with though.

Also, the auto-battle idea is to save time in RTS's... not a feature for RPG's too much.

[Galad22]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

What do you consider gameplay?

Combat is part of it. yes.

Other parts, conversations, stealth. Diplomacy.

There are many things you can make excellent quest that doesn't involve combat.

There is a quest in witcher where you make an autopsy with you doctor friend. And you can get it wrong. Brilliant quest.

But those are harder to make than just threw few mobs in front of you. Take some imagination as well.

[Aesieru]

entr0py wrote...

What they really need is a PAUSE dialogue button. The lack of one is as mind boggling and infuriating an oversight as not having a way to pause during gameplay. Any time the phone rings during a dialogue scene I come back not having any freaking clue how much I missed.

Consoles have one, called the system menu, as that supersedes games, but it's unintentional.

[Kidd]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

I'm assuming these games involve an army, not a group of people.

Mount&Blade has this, but that is because you have an ARMY aswell and they can go in without you and fight with alot of casualities but no risk of you being lost. 

So skipping combat in a game where you get most of the kills is a good idea compared to having a 100+man army do it for you?

Auto-Skipping in DA2 would cause you to die and restart combat. But in huge dungeons, you'd just be skipping an entire boss battle and everything... Where's the experience in that.

LoM is indeed a game where you amass an army, though you also follow that army personally and you have a place in the skirmishes. The "armies" are rarely more than 10 or so persons on each side. And really, I don't see how the amount of people in the battle matter.

Radical Dreamers is an extremely down to earth rpg about three humans who are breaking into a magician's mansion.

[mesmerizedish]

wssiimikeyii wrote...

Combat is an important part of the game, but not an essential part. 

That's a contradiction.

Like a scottish-korean

And now we're back to whether or not you speak English. Important does not mean essential, and I was speaking of games in general, not DAII specifically. Since most fights in DAII are unavoidable, it obviously is necessary. But if it were avoidable, then it wouldn't be. And if there weren't any combat at all, it could still be a fantastic game, like many fantastic games that don't have any combat.

[wssiimikeyii]

Galad22 wrote...

wssiimikeyii wrote...

What do you consider gameplay?

Combat is part of it. yes.

Other parts, conversations, stealth. Diplomacy.

There are many things you can make excellent quest that doesn't involve combat.

There is a quest in witcher where you make an autopsy with you doctor friend. And you can get it wrong. Brilliant quest.

But those are harder to make than just threw few mobs in front of you. Take some imagination as well.

Give me an example of a quest in DA2 that isn't just combat. What gameplay other than that is in this game?

[moilami]

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Galad22 wrote...
In best possible scenario you should be able to avoid combat in DA2 through diplomacy or stealth. But since you aren't allowed to do these either, then button to skip combat is just as acceptable to me.

I don't play rpgs for hundreds of trash mobs that spawn behind my mages out of thin air and comes in waves of 10.

Stop playing bad RPGs.

Lol that was well said.

This new skip the combat makes way to even more bad combat than what was in DA2. And if you don't then like the combat fans will yell at you "u can skips teh combats no is foercings u paly comabt"

Combat in DA2 by the way is not actually combat. A gadget could be made with one button which would send random commands to the game varying from "target closest mob" and "run to random direction"  and "activate random ability" and a monkey could be teached to win the Demo.

In the Old Days you had to play the game in order to be considered winning the game. In these new "need spoonfeed me" you can soon skip combat alltogether. That would had been called cheating in the Old Days. Novadays it is called "enchanted end user licensee experience".

Having said all this I say it is fine if they do "skips cobats lol" button. It supposedly serves some people well?? At least the game is theirs and I am not gonna buy it. 

[Kidd]

Aesieru wrote...

You sacrifice something for it, which is a point... an auto-battle is trying to actually get you to play the game instead of sacrificing so much when you might get through a battle with no damage whatsoever.

Skipping bosses I don't agree with though.

Also, the auto-battle idea is to save time in RTS's... not a feature for RPG's too much.

I'm sure any sacrifice in the game isn't intended. If you just charge the soldiers at the other side, the results are often very similar, and that's the "strategy" the AI employs whether it's facing you in combat or if it's playing your game for you. And even if an auto-combat button would make a battle cost us one more health potion than otherwise in DA3, is that a bad feature?