428 réponses à ce sujet

[vallore]

Eh, I agree with Jennifer Heppler.

She was not speaking about taking combat out from games; she was speaking of giving payers options, to customize their games so to make the experience more enjoyable for them.

As she said, right now that already happens in reverse.  In many games, a player can skip the dialogue and jump into the combat if that is what a player wants and likes.  But if another style of player enjoys the dialogue but would like to skip combat, well, too bad, there is no option for that.

Frankly, the more customizable the experience the more diverse styles of players will be able to enjoy it, meaning a greater potential audience.  More resources for future games become available, etc.

[Herr Uhl]

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?

[Clertar]

I find it sensible. A good CRPG should still be fun to play withouth the fights, right? I enjoy the strategy of fighting with my PC and their companions, but I guess something like what we fins in the exaggerated introduction of DA2 (where you can fight more darkspawn, or let your sibling take care of them) couldn't hurt here and there. The fact that it exists doesn't force you to do it.

The new DLC Mark of the Assassin seems to present a compromise, with sneakiness being more of an option...

[vallore]

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.

There is no danger of that. As I see it, combat is an essential component of the fun that many players gets from games, and developers know it far too well, they are not going to cut from it as  this is not about
making something secondary, enjoyed by a small minority of players, optional.

It is more about creating a button that, when you press it, you can skip the inevitable extra waves of enemies, and other features a particular group of players may find boring. You know; a really “awesome bottom.”

[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.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

[Maconbar]

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.

Modifié par Maconbar, 27 septembre 2011 - 05:46 .

[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.

[Siegdrifa]

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.

It come donw to one simple mechanic :
getting a reward.

Getting a reward don't have to be only XP and doesn't mean always a kill.

[thats1evildude]

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.

[LobselVith8]

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.

It's nice to hear that. I think that was one of the frustrations people had with the game.

[blothulfur]

You could try a good old chinwag, worked in torment and fallout.

[Atakuma]

Modifié par Atakuma, 27 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[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.

[Addai]

House_Hlaalu wrote...
I agree with this part, i hated DA2's combat, but a skip combat option is not the sulution, better combat is.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?  Sure, if encounter design is good, people will enjoy playing through a fight, but players are different and whereas you may like a long slog with a particular enemy, someone else on a given day might just want to drop a nuke on it and move on to something else they consider more interesting and rewarding.  As long as it is OPTIONAL, how pray tell is that tinkling on your cornflakes?

It's just like the people who say mods are "cheats."  No.  Mods allow people to customize the game to suit themselves, because this is a leisure activity, and in a single player game no one gets to tell another person they're "doing it wrong."  I have no interest in nudie mods, but judging by file popularity, this is a big criteria for some people.  So what?  They paid for the game, let them mold the game to suit their own tastes.  Options can never be bad.  Maker forbid that someone enjoy a game in a different way than you do.

[just_me]

I think the player should not be able to completely skip any content that involve player interaction... at least not on the first playthrough.
And I'd say one cannot "skip dialogue" ... you can fast-forward to the parts that require input from the player, but you cannot tell the game to make these decisions for you, so you might be able to skip the "monologue" of the NPCs, but not everything...
All aspects of the game define the experience... imo a player should experience a game completely at least once...
On a second playthrough and onward however... skipping the content you did not enjoy is fine.
This does not mean an aspect of the game shouldn't be "the least possible annoyance" for players, who might not like the aspect.
If you do not like combat... that's what easy difficulties are for.
If you hate puzzles... maybe the game has some hints for you.
And if you're not in the mood to listen to the NPC talking... fast forward to the part where your input matters.
And it certainly does not mean that the game should not provide multiple methods to solve a given problem. e.g. if you have to enter a certain region, but the guards won't let you and you can either bribe them, kill them, or look for a hidden entrance. These options really add to the game, while providing a "solve it for me"-Button does not...

And if you can skip combat in DA... there isn't much left, is there?
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...

[Blastback]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

You just made my day.

[xkg]

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...

Why. It is very simple. Because it is single player game and no one is losing anything. How I am going to play and how much XP I am going to get even for nothing is not going to make any problems for you nor for anyone else. This is not MMO game.

I can cheat my game in thousands of ways anytime and you can't do anything about that. Are you going to tell develpoers now to protect their games so i can't cheat ?

Just think about it. OPTIONAL feature in SINGLE PLAYER game. There should be absolutely no discussion and no complaints about that.

Modifié par xkg, 27 septembre 2011 - 06:34 .

[MerinTB]

You want to worry about getting people into gaming, buying your cinematic games but not overwhelming them with having to do flow-charts and cost-benefit ratios for character design?

Giving a "skip combat" button would work wonders. If you don't have to worry about your build being ineffective in combat (i.e. where you die, and in most such games the only real way you can "lose"), you don't have to WORRY about your build.

Skipping combat (or any hand-eye coordination reliant sequences, like chase/racing parts, QTE puzzles, etc.) would draw in many, many people. I can think of four people I know who don't play games / only play old school adventure games who want nothing to do with controllers and reaction times and such. But, picking one example, my wife likes watching sequences in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age, but she immediately leaves when the combat starts. It's how she plays D&D, too... she pulls out the laptop or Kindle when a battle starts in D&D - that's not "role-playing" to her and she doesn't like it.

If my wife could play Mass Effect without the combat, she would. For the characters, story and choosing dialog.

Just like my father-in-law is actually interested in L.A. Noire because I told him you could skip the driving and fighting sequences (more or less.)

Heck, I'd probably start skipping tons of combats myself, and I love combat usually in RPGs.

[syllogi]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

Well made puzzles are an excellent non-combat approach to solving problems.  

Just throwing that out there.

[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.

[aries1001]

If Bioware or other rpg developers add a skip combat actions, don't we end up with -ehm- cough - an adventure game, like Syberia, Dreamfall or Monkey Island (not counting the funny sword combat in dialogues...)

Also, I though Fable had such a button already?

I think there's a different option here: to make it so that we as players can choose to through the game with as little combat as possible. Fallout 1 has this option as does Planescape: Torment - almost anyway. (I think, you only have to fight once or twice in the game?)

[Atakuma]

I just hope stealth will be an actual option and not just something you're only allowed (or forced) do do in specific situations. The stealth sections in TW2 felt very contrived and I wouldn't want something that for future games.

Modifié par Atakuma, 27 septembre 2011 - 06:50 .

[Tiglatpilesar]

Less combat, that would be totally awsome ! I still wish that there was option to completly turn off combat ( or almost completly) in DA2, that kind of DA "lite" would be great game for me, where despite people bashing DA2 for so many reasons, there was only one game breaking for me: tedious combat and the fact, that it was almost constant.

[Sabotin]

It would be interesting to have the option to turn DA2 basically into an adventure game, heh. Maybe a cutscene or two for the important fights. I think it'd be also an interesting thing to develop, having to make it work both ways, game flow and all.