360 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

jack_f wrote...

Derax, for example gets it, BDF plays dumb as expected.

So you don't have a problem with your choices all leading to the same outcome, or having cosmetic consequences at best?

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

But if the outcome is the same, then the only thing guiding my choice is my character. That is roleplaying in its purest.

[Galad22]

Derax wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People like "games" for lots of reasons.  No-one here can judge.  Especially since we're talking about a toggle.

Xewaka wrote...

Sure they did. They called them graphic adventures.

Note the past tense. 

In the end people like their protagonist to get better / stronger and beat others. (that is why there are items/skill and so on...)

The more attachment the better! But without any combat it wouldn't be a rpg game anymore.

Planescape:torment, deus ex and vampire the masquarade had very little needed fighting and they were very very good games and I consider them 3 best rpgs ever. So no Fighting really isn't needed in rpgs.

[upsettingshorts]

jack_f wrote...

Derax, for example gets it, BDF plays dumb as expected.

So you don't have a problem with your choices all leading to the same outcome, or having cosmetic consequences at best?

I have a big problem with it.  DAO was much, much worse in this respect than DA2.  So in terms of the sequel, I am relatively pleased with the reactivity, because its predecessor had none whatsoever.  In general, BioWare games do reactivity fairly badly - or at least, infrequently - as it creates issues with the story.  In DAO we got epilogue cards.

But I can't think of too many games that actually do it well.

Granted, folks can't quite make up their minds if I'm BDF or not. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 mars 2011 - 02:43 .

[Xewaka]

jack_f wrote...
So you don't have a problem with your choices all leading to the same outcome, or having cosmetic consequences at best?

We have always had that problem. Most decisions in games are reduced to a binary yes/no flag, despite the apparent options, and if it is a plot critical point, not even that. There's a reason the term "but thou must" is coined: To express the railroading inherent to any given videogame.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And there are way too many fans of BioWare that think the dioalog is everything.

They're still infinitely better than the one fan who thinks his views on what makes cRPGs and Bioware games what they are is the correct one.

Way to ad homenim.

Should I?  Why not:  You started it. 

Non ad-hominem version:  You do not have the authority to determine the "proper" way to approach cRPGs.  In a thread about a toggle you have called for the termination of one individual for suggesting - five years ago - that there be a toggle for people who disagree with your position.  Depending on my mood you've either implicitly or explicitly categorized anyone who doesn't agree as ignorant. 

And again:  Geezus people this is about a suggestion for a toggle from five years ago!  A SUGGESTION.  FOR A TOGGLE.   From a writer who has - I presume - little to no input over the kind of decisions that would even lead to such a toggle!

*head desk*

Read through my first post again. I didn't say "skipping combat is bad because you suck." What I said, or rather implied was that I don't want her making games if she thinks it's a good idea to skip combat. It was kind of the other way around from ad homenim.

[LegendaryBlade]

Galad22 wrote...

Derax wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People like "games" for lots of reasons.  No-one here can judge.  Especially since we're talking about a toggle.

Xewaka wrote...

Sure they did. They called them graphic adventures.

Note the past tense. 

In the end people like their protagonist to get better / stronger and beat others. (that is why there are items/skill and so on...)

The more attachment the better! But without any combat it wouldn't be a rpg game anymore.

Planescape:torment, deus ex and vampire the masquarade had very little needed fighting and they were very very good games and I consider them 3 best rpgs ever. So no Fighting really isn't needed in rpgs.

They didn't have a skip/win button either, combat could be avoided by doing things to avoid it within the scope of the game. Not clicking 'skip this fight'

A skip button is essentially the same as a 'win fight' button, so at that point why even bother playing?

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Read through my first post again. I didn't say "skipping combat is bad because you suck." What I said, or rather implied was that I don't want her making games if she thinks it's a good idea to skip combat. It was kind of the other way around from ad homenim.

I didn't say that was where you did it, but I'm not going to derail the thread into a long discussion about who insulted who and when - if you care, PM me.  I do not.

LegendaryBlade wrote...

A skip button is essentially the same as a 'win fight' button, so at that point why even bother playing?

If you have to ask, the toggle isn't for you, and you wouldn't use it, so why would you care?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 mars 2011 - 02:44 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I have a big problem with it.  DAO was much, much worse in this respect than DA2.  So in terms of the sequel, I am relatively pleased with the reactivity, because its predecessor had none whatsoever.  In general, BioWare games do reactivity fairly badly - or at least, infrequently - as it creates issues with the story.  In DAO we got epilogue cards.

But I can't think of too many games that actually do it well.

Granted, folks can't quite make up their minds if I'm BDF or not.

The sort of reactivity I understood them to be talking about is within a given conversation or situation. In which case, as I said, the lack of reactivity can be a good thing. Macro-reactivity (I'm coining this now... make this happen, people) is hard to do, and I agree that DAII does it much better than Origins did. It has little to do with role-playing for me, though. It's largely an issue of world consistency, and that's something that's important no matter the genre.

[EDIT] Don't kid yourself. You're BDF and you know it

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 17 mars 2011 - 02:46 .

[Derax]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Derax wrote...

I think you don't understand it.

He would prefer the dialogue options to result into several different outcomes, which actually reminds me exactly of a  RPG,

I absolutely understand, as per my above statement.

That said, I think that when the outcome is the same regardless of how you act, how you act become infinitely more important from a role-playing perpesctive. If I have three different tones tied to three different outcomes, am I really roleplaying? Or am I just using the tools I have to achieve the optimum result?

But if the outcome is the same, then the only thing guiding my choice is my character. That is roleplaying in its purest.

Several outcomes has nothing (or only sometimes) to do with the optimal result but playing it  as the good / the bad guy on several runs for a replaybility.

If i was really only intrested in several different tones i would stick to live-roleplay or maybe pen and paper but for me the pc has to offfer more.... 

[TMZuk]

I ~wish~ there was a way to skip the combat in DA2. It bored me witless.

[Galad22]

LegendaryBlade wrote...

They didn't have a skip/win button either, combat could be avoided by doing things to avoid it within the scope of the game. Not clicking 'skip this fight'

A skip button is essentially the same as a 'win fight' button, so at that point why even bother playing?

But if game is othervise very good and have enough story fighting isn't needed. So why add useless fighting with trash mobs and force people fight them in droves if game is good without them.

[upsettingshorts]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
[EDIT] Don't kid yourself. You're BDF and you know it

That's what I thought, but CoS Sarah Jinstar said I wasn't BDF I was "reasonable."

I'm as confused as anyone.  But you know I have my own labeling system anyway.  

[rob_k]

jack_f wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

jack_f wrote...

Choosing the tone of my reply in dialogues that all lead to the same outcome anyway is not gameplay.

If that's how you feel, then maybe RPGs aren't the genre for you?

Shallow dating sims like DA2 that try to pass as RPGs are not the genre for me, I'd say.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the person whose quote I underlined has the game registered but thinks the game is a dating sim?

Even by playing one minute of the game, you can tell it's not a dating sim.

I think that just basically invalidated your opinion.

And OP, you realise it's Jennifer Hepler? And not Jennifer Helper?

Finally, people are now resorting to things said years ago to bash people at BioWare and such...?

I believe I'm astounded.

Edit: By the way, not having a go, but games such as Myst have the puzzle elements making up the gameplay portion of them.

Granted, games such as Heavy Rain don't have puzzles. It's an interactive story, but still classed as a game because you control it and such.

Modifié par rob_k, 17 mars 2011 - 02:52 .

[Jim Cojones]

What is your least favorite thing about working in the industry?

Playing the games. This is probably a terrible thing to admit, but it has definitely been the single most difficult thing for me. I came into the job out of a love of writing, not a love of playing games. While I enjoy the interactive aspects of gaming, if a game doesn't have a good story, it's very hard for me to get interested in playing it. Similarly, I'm really terrible at so many things which most games use incessantly -- I have awful hand-eye coordination, I don't like tactics, I don't like fighting, I don't like keeping track of inventory, and I can't read a game map to save my life. This makes it very difficult for me to play to the myriad games I really should be keeping up on as our competition.

This pretty much explains how the terrible idea of "skip part of the game" button came to life. If you're working on designing computer games, you need to love computer games. Not only to know what are the trends in modern gaming but most importantly, to have a rich experience of playing the classics which introduced many elements that are rarely seen in games nowadays, but could enrich your products.

Otherwise, when faced with a problem, you'll have to think of a new solution, when one may already exist, much more interesting than what you'll be able to think of.

In this example, we want to design such system that will allow players to choose what elements of the game interest them and play the way they like it. It's a great idea, especially for a role-playing game. This genre is based on being able to play the character you wish to, in a way that suits you. But introducing a cheat code as a valid method of playing is certainly not the best way to achieve that.

Let's look back at System Shock, game published in 1994. Surely gaming has evolved so much that such an old game can't teach us any new? If there was something obviously brilliant in its design, it would be a standard nowadays anyway, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, it wouldn't. SS has highly customisable difficulty level. Instead of having one slider, it had four, allowing you to play an adventure game full of difficult puzzle, a game very heavy on story but with next to no gameplay, a simple shooter or a combination of the above. You could also impose a time limit or change the rules of cyberspace mode.

RPGs also experimented with allowing you to concentrate more on dialogues or puzzles, while being able to avoid many combat encounters. Dark Sun is the first example I can think of. The game has quite a few mandatory fights but many times you can use your wits and either find a peaceful solution or gain allies that will make encounter much, much easier. Fallouts further expanded on this idea, allowing you to finish them without engaging in combat. Or avoid dialogues and shoot everything that moves, if that's what interests you more. What's extremely important, even when you was able to skip combat, this games didn't stop being games, not interactive movies. There was a certain challenge in finding ways to resolve problems without violence. In Fallout, you had to build your character in a proper way, you had to gather certain items and ingame knowledge, you had to choose proper dialogue lines. In contrast, in BioWare games there's usually very little challenge outside of combat.

The worst is that these games didn't even feel like they perfected what they tried to achieve. While playing them, one could only imagine how much more could developers expand on them, analysing how the mentioned elements worked. Not only these ideas didn't evolved, they were completely abandoned by the industry, even though they were met with positive critical reception. All the games I mentioned were successful enough to guarantee sequels.

Instead of being able to customise difficulty level in meaningful way, our options are being removed and while in DAO friendly fire was controlled by its own option, in DA2 it's a part of general difficulty slider. It's still amazing that it's possible to toggle friendly fire, considering that it became a norm not to use difficulty levels, but "tediousness levels", which only give enemies additional hp, making combat longer and slower but not much more challenging. In nineties it was a norm for games to change number of enemies, their type and placement basing on chosen difficulty level.

Such lack of progression, and even regression is not an accident; people like Jennifer Helper are the reason for that. Developers who don't like games and people who buy games, even though they don't want them, they want to read CYOA books and watch interactive movies.

[mesmerizedish]

Derax wrote...

Several outcomes has nothing (or only sometimes) to do with the optimal result but playing it  as the good / the bad guy on several runs for a replaybility.

If i was really only intrested in several different tones i would stick to live-roleplay or maybe pen and paper but for me the pc has to offfer more....

Okay, that's fair. For me, it doesn't. I play cRPGs because of their similarities to PnP games, and where they're different, I cite failings*. Really, a PC game needs less to offer for me to be happy, because I get that a pure, complete, and ideal translation would be impossible (and no fun; unlike Sylvius, I do like multiplayer games).




*In general. Obviously, things like cooldowns vs. times per day, real-time vs. turn-based, etc. are necessary changes in the translation of game systems. I'm thinking bigger.

[Derax]

Galad22 wrote...

Derax wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People like "games" for lots of reasons.  No-one here can judge.  Especially since we're talking about a toggle.

Xewaka wrote...

Sure they did. They called them graphic adventures.

Note the past tense. 

In the end people like their protagonist to get better / stronger and beat others. (that is why there are items/skill and so on...)

The more attachment the better! But without any combat it wouldn't be a rpg game anymore.

Planescape:torment, deus ex and vampire the masquarade had very little needed fighting and they were very very good games and I consider them 3 best rpgs ever. So no Fighting really isn't needed in rpgs.

 1. I like and love both pt and deus ex.
2. Sry you are stil not getting it: when the game gives you the option to avoid the fight for me it is alright. (like in deus ex where you could hide and sneak for example or by talking.)

But i do not like the the option to just skip the fight because it is to boring .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If you have to ask, the toggle isn't for you, and you wouldn't use it, so why would you care?

You're acting like this suggestion doesn't have very serious implications when it really does. If a developer like BioWare, that is constantly being told that it's stories are the best part of it's games, starts to get the idea that it can get away with leaving out specific features in the game play (since lots of players will just skip them anyway) we have problems. DAII is actually a specific example of that. We have an interview of, I think Mike Laidlaw, where he talks about cutting out all manner of details from areas and environments because "no one really took time to notice them." The same mindset could certainly spread to other features of the games."It's just a toggle" is something of a straw man.

And again, you should have a look at some visual novels if you want 100% dialog trees. Agin, not a "gtfo" comment. It is a suggestion to try out something you might really enjoy.

[LegendaryBlade]

Galad22 wrote...

LegendaryBlade wrote...

They didn't have a skip/win button either, combat could be avoided by doing things to avoid it within the scope of the game. Not clicking 'skip this fight'

A skip button is essentially the same as a 'win fight' button, so at that point why even bother playing?

But if game is othervise very good and have enough story fighting isn't needed. So why add useless fighting with trash mobs and force people fight them in droves if game is good without them.

If getting around the fights should be implimented, it should be implimented within the games mechanics, not with an autowin button that coughs out experience and skips to the next section of the game. Not by doing away with entire aspects of the game like suggested in the article, where she said she hated managing inventory and essentially playing the ful scope of the game.

You know, older games used to have I Win buttons like that. What were they called? Oh yes, cheats. 

[Maria Caliban]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Are you a he or she? Just wondering.

You would not be the first.

I identify as a woman.

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
[EDIT] Don't kid yourself. You're BDF and you know it

That's what I thought, but CoS Sarah Jinstar said I wasn't BDF I was "reasonable."

I'm as confused as anyone.  But you know I have my own labeling system anyway.  

Most of the people whom I've seen labeled "BDF" are reasonable. Lots of people with whom I disagree are also reasonable. There are certainly unreasonable people on both sides of the table, but I'm proud of my BDF badge, so I don't want the crazies getting a hold of their own.

People who are unreasonable include DarthCaine and Sylvius, but I've only ever called one of them a pinhead

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 17 mars 2011 - 02:55 .

[the_one_54321]

LegendaryBlade wrote...
If getting around the fights should be implimented, it should be implimented within the games mechanics, not with an autowin button that coughs out experience and skips to the next section of the game. Not by doing away with entire aspects of the game like suggested in the article, where she said she hated managing inventory and essentially playing the ful scope of the game.

You know, older games used to have I Win buttons like that. What were they called? Oh yes, cheats.

Posting in solidarity with this.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're acting like this suggestion doesn't have very serious implications when it really does.

Because it doesn't. 

Five years ago.  A writer.  Not a designer.  A toggle.  All hints that you guys just might be taking it a bit too seriously.

I would love for "skip the fight" to be an actual implemented game mechanic - like through sneaking and diplomacy and whatnot, just to point that out.

We're still talking about a toggle though.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

People who are unreasonable include ... Sylvius

Sylvius is reasonable to a fault.  And I mean that literally. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[Derax]

rob_k wrote...

jack_f wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

jack_f wrote...

Choosing the tone of my reply in dialogues that all lead to the same outcome anyway is not gameplay.

If that's how you feel, then maybe RPGs aren't the genre for you?

Shallow dating sims like DA2 that try to pass as RPGs are not the genre for me, I'd say.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the person whose quote I underlined has the game registered but thinks the game is a dating sim?

Even by playing one minute of the game, you can tell it's not a dating sim.

I think that just basically invalidated your opinion.

And OP, you realise it's Jennifer Hepler? And not Jennifer Helper?

Finally, people are now resorting to things said years ago to bash people at BioWare and such...?

I believe I'm astounded.

Edit: By the way, not having a go, but games such as Myst have the puzzle elements making up the gameplay portion of them.

Granted, games such as Heavy Rain don't have puzzles. It's an interactive story, but still classed as a game because you control it and such.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the person whose quote I underlined has the game registered but cannot see the volitional exaggeration?

[John Epler]

So now we're referencing a comment made by a writer in an interview five years ago? This is what we're getting worried and upset about now?

Seriously, folks. I am generally fairly understanding when you guys have concerns, but this feels like you're searching for something to be outraged about.

[Pedrak]

As a general rule:

Good combat is good.

Crap combat is crap.

So, instead of making tons and tons of filler combat, only easy (I haven't played DA2 yet, I'm speaking in general) what about making less combat but more creative and challenging?

I suspect every player worth something would love challenging, tactical combat with less numerous but widely different, unique, smart enemies, combat in which you have to use the terrain, in which you have a sense of urgency and the knowledge that you can't afford to **** things up.

"Oh damn, a werewolf, let's take the silver weapons! A vampire, prepare fire and wooden stakes! Enemies coming from that house, send a tank to block the door and burn the house down!" Who wouldn't like that?

If disliking what most modern RPGs now pass for combat - damn mud crabs, stupid morons who scale to your level and crap battles with waves of enemies - is a female thing, then I should probably check if I haven't a vagina somewhere.

Modifié par Pedrak, 17 mars 2011 - 03:01 .