7 réponses à ce sujet

[House_Hlaalu]

Im sorry, but shouldn't a person who is in the video game bussiness actually like videogames?

If you don't like playing through all that combat and action (the stuff that makes a videogame a videogame), then why don't you just go and watch a movie or write for a tv show or something? Its all this skipping through the action in videogames nowadays that i hate. L.A. Noire had this where you could just skip all the action sequencences.

The action and playing is what makes videogames. Its the gameplay, you cant get rid of or skip through gameplay in a game!? The option is there to skip acutscene because cutscenes belong to movies and not games. Videogames need to stop pretending that they are movies, and start acting like games.

How can i buy games off a company that employs people who think like this.

Also, thats Jennifer Heppler, one of the writers for Bioware, and just ignore the big-font red comment.

Modifié par House_Hlaalu, 26 septembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Stanley Woo]

Just a reminder that I take insults against our developers very seriously, so let's please keep this civil and constructive. If Jennifer is good at what she does, does it really matter if she prefers different things in her games than you do?

[Stanley Woo]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...

It's really naive to think an option to skip the combat would mean just ginving those who want the option skipping the combat, and everything else would remain unchanged. It would mean a major shift of focus, and combat would be receiving far less development attention.

What would get the development attention in that case?

If the discussion is about giving players the option to skip combat, I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that we would put a lesser focus on combat. Those players who choose to play the combat through would still have to have a good combat experience. It's the same as people wanting a "toggle" for some game features. We wouldn't be doing less work; we'd be doing more work in order to make the game a good experience for those who have the option toggled on as well as those who have the option toggled off.

As to what would get the development attention, how about any of the other hundreds of things that make up a game? We could put more time or effort on conversation, for example, or level design. Or polish. Or pacing. Or memory optimization. Or character animation. Or boss fights. Or testing edge cases. Or romances. Or whatever.

It's a hypothetical situation based on most people thinking that game development decisions are static, one-time binary choices in a vacuum, rather than iteration and meetings and decision-making and compromise based on an ongoing global vision.

[John Epler]

Maconbar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I do suspect, though, that if you designed a game such that players could skip the combat, the game would end up having more non-combat content.

I would probably enjoy that development. Alternate ways to approach a problem is something that I appreciate in my rpgs. If I want to just grind out kills for xp, I would be playing an mmo.

Which to me seems a rather more elegant approach to the whole question. I know there's an understanding around the office that we need more ways to approach a situation than 'go in, start hitting people hard in the face, see where it takes us'. Whether it's as simple as stealth or as complicated as some bizarre Rube Goldberg'esque series of plot and world events, something that we definitely lacked in DA2 was a variety of ways to solve problems. So I think it'd be entirely reasonable to see a little less focus on the combat side of things, if that means we can come up with different ways of approaching and solving problems.

[John Epler]

thats1evildude wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Which to me seems a rather more elegant approach to the whole question. I know there's an understanding around the office that we need more ways to approach a situation than 'go in, start hitting people hard in the face, see where it takes us'. Whether it's as simple as stealth or as complicated as some bizarre Rube Goldberg'esque series of plot and world events, something that we definitely lacked in DA2 was a variety of ways to solve problems. So I think it'd be entirely reasonable to see a little less focus on the combat side of things, if that means we can come up with different ways of approaching and solving problems.

I do like hitting people in the face, though. Don't lose that.

Heavens forfend! It's still an important solution to keep in mind - just, maybe, not the -only- solution that we want to have. But things such as talking your way out of a sticky situation, using other characters to your advantage, or simply skirting around a problem area, well, those are all solutions that should appear in at least some situations. Letting you roleplay not just in-dialogue, but in how you approach the world is something that Deus Ex (both the original and HR) does rather well, and it's an important concept to keep in mind when creating RPGs.

[John Epler]

just_me wrote...

Why should you even gain xp, loot and develop your character if you skip combat anyway? Even almost all the non combat skills from DA:O are pointless without combat...

Well, I'd say because combat (and improving at combat) -shouldn't- be the primary point of these games. I can think of at least a few games I've played where combat seemed almost a distraction from the real -point- of the game. One example that springs to mind, for me, was Vampire : The Masquare : Bloodlines. The best parts of that game were interacting with the characters - the social side of things. Next up, for me at least? Stealth. Being sneaky, and just generally acting as a vampire in that sort of world -should- act. Combat was a distant third, and sections where you were forced to engage in long stretches of combat were perhaps the weakest parts of that game.

Now, combat should be fun and engaging, and it should be a rewarding and viable way to play a game. I don't think you'll see any disagreement from us on that point. But I don't think it needs to be the only way to play a game, and I think the general sentiment is that each fight should be meaningful. While there are going to be fights you can't avoid (for whatever reason, whether circumstantial or otherwise), they shouldn't always be the only solution. And players who choose a different style of progression should be equally rewarded. RPGs should be in line with their name - playing a Role. Not a combat simulator, in other words, but something where options exist. And, certainly, when you travel in certain circles and poke your nose into the business of others, sometimes you are going to have to fight. But a player should never feel like a game has two beats - 'fight, talk'. We hope to move further away from that idea in the future.

[David Gaider]

Jennifer can, without a doubt, speak for herself-- and she might, if she weren't currently on leave. Personally, I wouldn't want to put words in her mouth (as many other people seem to be willing to do) but I know for a fact that she loves RPG's. She comes from a tabletop RPG background, and worked on several tabletop RPG systems.

I think, however, that to her (and to many people) what she loves most about RPG's is the story. I don't know that she dislikes combat per se-- she certainly seems to appreciate the importance it plays in heightening the tension of a story-- but I imagine she's not as big a fan of CRPG combat mechanics, especially when they frustrate her and keep her from getting to more of the story. I don't think that, speaking as a player, asking for the option to skip combat is a crime.

Would we ever do that? Probably not-- though I can think of worse suggestions. Beyond that, Jennifer is a writer and we don't have a lot of input on game mechanics anyhow... any more than a programmer would have input on the art or an artist on the AI programming. People see "developer" and they jump to conclusions, like how some people think I'm a Lead Designer or something equivalent that decides everything that BioWare does or creates just because I post here frequently, but the truth is that the process of making a game is very collaborative with a lot of interdependencies. Everything is limited by everything else, and that's just how it works. Jennifer doesn't need to be interested in combat mechanics because that's not her job (outside of how combat plays a part in the quests she's writing), and comments that she should be seem to forget there's far more to RPG's than just the combat.

Odd that this would have to be stated on these forums, where people regularly say the opposite ("hack and slash isn't what an RPG is about") or say things like "the art quality isn't important, it's the story that matters"... but it seems some people will take any opportunity they can to lay blame or make personal attacks that smack of misogyny. Which is a little sad. Jennifer's an excellent writer and also a fine designer, and different viewpoints are just as welcome on a development team as they are among the fans.

Keep that in mind, please, and stay excellent.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 septembre 2011 - 08:57 .

[Stanley Woo]

I think that's more than enough absurdity, taking things out of context, and ridiculous hypotheses, thank you.

End of line.