288 réponses à ce sujet

[Meris]

Wulfram wrote...

A few people might have appreciated the option to make unusual armour choices, but in practice this option had little effect on most peoples games

Actually, that's not really true. The one time in DA:O when BioWare supported a less orthodox playstyle, the Arcane Warrior, garnered quite a following. So if, instead of removing a feature for no gain whatsoever, BioWare had, instead, expanded and improved on DA:O's specializations, then fundamental choices in character customization and fight style wouldn't be only the case of a single specialization.

I myself had some fun with fundamental changes, including but not limited to the Arcane Warrior.

[batlin]

pixieface wrote...

Alright. Cool.

I'm just going to
agree to disagree with you now because I see where this is going.
I would refute all of your points and then you would refute all of mine
and we would fall into an endless hate spiral of BUT JUST LIKE
LISTEN TO ME FOR A SECOND U DUMMY OK LOL and neither one of us will
budge.

The real problem is that we very clearly have different
ideas on what a video game actually is and is not, and what a game could
aspire to be, and what kind of audience games can potentially reach.
We're debating opinions. It's a lose-lose battle.

So: I don't
think it's a terrible idea for games to have a super easy mode or an
optional skip function when appropriate in order to accomodate a wider
audience. You think that the people who would use these functions should
watch a movie or play tabletop games instead because video games are
about fighting and all that entails. I think people can feel a great
deal of accomplishment from solving character driven or plot driven
story problems while doing very easy combat or no combat - and that not
everyone actually seeks the same things from games, including the
personal satisfaction feeling you describe from overcoming difficult
combat. You don't think people can feel the same sense of accomplishment
and self-worth from doing story focused challenges, and that games, at
their best, deliver on this feeling of personal satisfaction.

I get it. That's fine. This is fine. We're all fine here, right? I'm fine! Hooray internet!

I'm not going to comment on the hatred for Jennifer because I'm preeeetty sure I'm just being trolled on that point.

Oh I see, skip over all my reaosning why cleaving the gameplay and combat into entirely different sections is a horrible, horrible idea that makes it impossible for developers to tie gameplay in with combat, the VERY THING that makes video games a unique medium of entertainment. SEE IF I CARE

wangxiuming wrote...

You have your definition of game, and I have mine. I don't expect you to agree with my definition, but by the same token, you can't expect me to agree with yours either. That was my point.

The definition of "game" is not up for debate or dependant on personal preference. I suggest you look it up in a dictionary.

I didn't say that there are no alternatives to Bioware RPGs. I was saying they don't compare. LARPing, Second Life, Dear Esther ... these are activities/games with their own merits, but they are not substitutes for the immersion provided by a Bioware RPG. Nowhere else can you find worlds that are crafted with such care and detail, and where you're in as much control as you are when you're playing a Bioware RPG.

It's very unfortunate that there aren't any mediums that you think compare to what BioWare does, but unfortunately that doesn't change the fact then when you remove gameplay from an RPG, what you have left is no longer an RPG beause it is no longer a game.

This point was not directed at you, but I do think that insinuating people who prefer storytelling to combat should "enjoy other mediums" instead of playing RPGs is tantamount to telling them they're playing the game wrong. It's the same thing as saying, "I don't agree with how they enjoy the game, so they should go play these other things."

Tell me this; if someone prefers a story, characters, and immersion over combat, what precisely is the downside to simply watching a movie instead of playing a game? I already pointed out a downside to the solution of making the gameplay optional, and Fast Jimmy explained it very well as well. All you've done it moaned about how people shouldn't tell others what to enjoy. And once again, i will tell you that I am not; HEPLER said she doesn't enjoy playing the game and would rather get a story out of it. SHE explained how she enjoys games, not me. I am merely making the logical conclusion that she would get more enjoyment out of a form of entertainment that doesn't involve gameplay based on how she says she is most entertained.

Let me ask a question. What are your thoughts on cheat codes, using the developer console, or modding games? These things often reduce challenge, sometimes completely so. And yet they have existed in videogames for as long as I can remember. Do you think people should be allowed to use cheat codes, the developer console, or mods if they want to?

Developers do not have to design a game around the player using a cheat, console command or a mod. They DO have to design a game around players that want combat, players that want story, and players that want all of the above if they make it so you can skip any of those parts. Why? Because, again, that means they can never integrate the story into the gameplay because they have to accomodate for those players who don't want gameplay and just want story. They literally cannot have a challenging section of the game that is simultaneously plot-critical. Does that not seem like a problem to you?

Modifié par batlin, 24 février 2012 - 11:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

A few people might have appreciated the option to make unusual armour choices, but in practice this option had little effect on most peoples games

(If they'd made medium armour not total crap, that might have made the issue more interesting)

Medium Armour was the perfect armour for Warrior archers prior to getting Master Archery.

And regardless of how many people used it, it was a powerful feature which they discarded.  Moreover, the presence of that choice, even if that choice is not taken, helps flesh out the setting.  Having all Rogues wear very similar armour seems contrived.  Diverse armour selections aid verisimilitude.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2012 - 11:42 .

[Realmzmaster]

Some of the comments I have read say that people who want to skip combat should watch a movie or read a book. The point is I cannot affect the movie or book with my choices unless it is an interactive movie (which most movies are not) or books like the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks or Tunnel and Trolls solitaire adventures (which still involve combat but it can be skipped over).
Interactive Fiction of which Infocom and Level 9 were kings had little or no combat. Nothing wrong with that. In fact Infocom games are some of the most involved games around. In fact Infocom made a RPG called Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth which was not combat heavy, but very good. The same can be said for Planescape Torment. It simply requires that the designer take it into consideration in the design of the game.

Skipping combat is not a new idea , SSI with games like Wizard's Crown (1985) and Eternal Dagger (1987) had optional AutoCombat buttons. The AutoComabt effectively let the program fight for the player. The quest resolution was still the same. I played both Wizard's Crown and Eternal Dagger. At times the AutoCombat found ways to win with my party build that I had not considered. I know because the computer allowed you to see the combat logs and you could follow the autocombat in the status box. This would allow the computer to take over the combat. The party could still win or lose which still would lead to the same resolution. The story can still be integrated with the combat.

What should happen is that the designer considers multiple ways to resolve a quest or encounter instead of just relying on combat.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Diverse armour selections aid verisimilitude.

Origins wasn't exactly a success in that respect.

But to get back to the topic at hand: I notice that some posters have brought up the fact that Hepler mentioned aspects of gaming besides combat that she does not like: Inventory Management, Crafting, Character Customisation.

"You can't skip those!" "They'e integral to the RPG experience!"

Actually, no. No they are not. None of that has anything to do with the definition of "Role-play". In role-play, you play a role. It is really that simple. The aspects that Hepler does not like, while traditional, are all ancillary to that concept, and there are plenty of examples of role-play games across the board that demonstrate this.

If a DM runs a D&D session where there is no combat; and no loot to find, no tools or traps or dungeons to navigate, and is based almost entirely on interpersonal relationships or politics, is it any less of a role-playing game? Are you not playing a role? Are the Fighting Fantasy series of gamebooks any less of a role-playing experience because they give you a fixed character with a canon backstory and a clear goal? Are all the options for how you choose to complete the story suddenly irrelevent because you didn't get to customise your character? Or because you could skip battles simply by flicking through the pages?

As for the argument of story and combat being integrated: well, thanks to the story of FF XIII-2, I'm facing useless trash mobs every five seconds, literally. I get no gold from them, I get less than ten points of EXP per battle. The fights are not challenging in any sense, the enemies are all identical and I am rewarded with pathetic amounts of the same kind of loot over and over. Just walking to the other side of the room to pick up treasure is taking five times longer than it should. In all other sections of the game so far, even though there was a variety of enemies and combat was a worthwhile pursuit in terms of rewards, I had the option of avoiding combat if I so choose, by simply not engaging the enemies in the field. I do not have this option here because there are too many to avoid, they actively chase you, and the level design of this area is cramped and maze-like.

I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 février 2012 - 05:15 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Plaintiff wrote...



I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Because that's the game. Pity if it sounds unpleasant to you (it does to me, too). If you don't like it, don't play it.

I remember when reaching the end of the game was an achievement, and the ending itself a reward for that. Now, games are so "story-driven" that reaching the end becomes an expectation, no, a demand. It's for the same reason I don't skip 290 pages out of a 300 page book to reach the end, or skip to the ending every time I watch a DVD. That stuff in the middle is just as important.

Even if the game is boring, or tough, or stupid, if you want to reach the end, buck up and play it. Otherwise, don't bother even going past the start menu.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 25 février 2012 - 05:23 .

[batlin]

Plaintiff wrote...

If a DM runs a D&D session where there is no combat; and no loot to find, no tools or traps or dungeons to navigate, and is based almost entirely on interpersonal relationships or politics, is it any less of a role-playing game? Are you not playing a role?

Yes, you are, but that doesn't make it a game. Games have rules. Games have a winner or a loser. Games are tests of skill. Yes, without those aspects, an RPG is most certainly not a game.

As for the argument of story and combat being integrated: well, thanks to the story of FF XIII-2, I'm facing useless trash mobs every five seconds, literally. I get no gold from them, I get less than ten points of EXP per battle. The fights are not challenging in any sense, the enemies are all identical and I am rewarded with pathetic amounts of the same kind of loot over and over. Just walking to the other side of the room to pick up treasure is taking five times longer than it should. In all other sections of the game so far, even though there was a variety of enemies and combat was a worthwhile pursuit in terms of rewards, I had the option of avoiding combat if I so choose, by simply not engaging the enemies in the field. I do not have this option here because there are too many to avoid, they actively chase you, and the level design of this area is cramped and maze-like.

I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Trash mobs aren't a staple of most RPGs. In fact, I would be very hesitant to call Final Fantasy an RPG to begin with; really they're more like action-adventure games. Trash mobs DO serve a purpose though, a big part of Final Fantasy is leveling up to meet harder challenges as the game progresses. If you skip the parts that allow you to level up, then you're s*** out of luck for that boss that can wipe out your party in one hit.

Modifié par batlin, 25 février 2012 - 05:53 .

[goofyomnivore]

I truly wouldn't care if there was a simulate combat option. Although if it encouraged devs to get lazy with combat/gameplay because 'people skip it anyways' then I would be strongly against it. I'm not going to pay 60$ for an interactive movie.

[batlin]

accidental repost

Modifié par batlin, 25 février 2012 - 05:53 .

[Plaintiff]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Because that's the game. Pity if it sounds unpleasant to you (it does to me, too). If you don't like it, don't play it.

I remember when reaching the end of the game was an achievement, and the ending itself a reward for that. Now, games are so "story-driven" that reaching the end becomes an expectation, no, a demand. It's for the same reason I don't skip 290 pages out of a 300 page book to reach the end, or skip to the ending every time I watch a DVD. That stuff in the middle is just as important.

Even if the game is boring, or tough, or stupid, if you want to reach the end, buck up and play it. Otherwise, don't bother even going past the start menu.

I said a good reason, not a retarded strawman.

The idea that anyone might consider sitting on their ass for 60+ hours an "acheivement" is extremely depressing.

Your comparisons to books and movies are not applicable at all. I dunno if you've noticed, but they are purely story-driven entertainment. Skipping the middle renders the whole thing useless because the ending will not make sense. This is not the case for skipping combat in videogames.  Nobody is advocating skipping "the middle" of videogames, because that includes the story. But way to go putting words in my mouth.

I will not lose anything from fast-forwarding through a section of combat, or even all the sections of combat. I do not need to fight swarms of the same enemy to understand what is going on.

When playing a story-driven game (ie, anything Bioware makes), it is perfectly legitimate to complain when certain design elements compromise my enjoyment of the story. As it is,  I had no problem with the combat in the game I am currently playing and would engage in it willingly, until this particular section, were the combat serves no purpose but to soak up precious seconds. For a medium that is designed to be enoyed during my free time, which is limited,  that is a grave problem. If you have no such restraints on your time, and you think scything through waves of mooks for no reason is a good use of that time, and important to the integrity of the gaming medium, then you are completely free to not skip combat.

When I don't feel like enjoying a story, I play a game where the story is negligable, or non-existent. It's not as if there is any shortage in that area.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 février 2012 - 06:17 .

[Plaintiff]

batlin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If a DM runs a D&D session where there is no combat; and no loot to find, no tools or traps or dungeons to navigate, and is based almost entirely on interpersonal relationships or politics, is it any less of a role-playing game? Are you not playing a role?

Yes, you are, but that doesn't make it a game. Games have rules. Games have a winner or a loser. Games are tests of skill. Yes, without those aspects, an RPG is most certainly not a game.

The rules of D&D are easily applied to non-combat and non-adventuring situations, in fact, some of them deal specifically with such situations.

What skills does D&D test? Your ability to roll dice and do fairly basic math? Perhaps your ability to think creatively to escape hypothetical situations? That excuse, I'd actually buy. But such a skill can be tested in a scenario that relies on personal relationships or politics just as easily as in a scenario that involves combat or dungeon crawling.

A "game" is just "structured play". As long as structure and play are both present, anything is a game.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Plaintiff wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Because that's the game. Pity if it sounds unpleasant to you (it does to me, too). If you don't like it, don't play it.

I remember when reaching the end of the game was an achievement, and the ending itself a reward for that. Now, games are so "story-driven" that reaching the end becomes an expectation, no, a demand. It's for the same reason I don't skip 290 pages out of a 300 page book to reach the end, or skip to the ending every time I watch a DVD. That stuff in the middle is just as important.

Even if the game is boring, or tough, or stupid, if you want to reach the end, buck up and play it. Otherwise, don't bother even going past the start menu.

I said a good reason, not a retarded strawman.

The idea that anyone might consider sitting on their ass for 60+ hours an "acheivement" is extremely depressing.

Your comparisons to books and movies are not applicable at all. I dunno if you've noticed, but they are purely story-driven entertainment. Skipping the middle renders the whole thing useless because the ending will not make sense. This is not the case for skipping combat in videogames.  Nobody is advocating skipping "the middle" of videogames, because that includes the story. But way to go putting words in my mouth.

I will not lose anything from fast-forwarding through a section of combat, or even all the sections of combat. I do not need to fight swarms of the same enemy to understand what is going on.

When playing a story-driven game (ie, anything Bioware makes), it is perfectly legitimate to complain when certain design elements compromise my enjoyment of the story. As it is,  I had no problem with the combat in the game I am currently playing and would engage in it willingly, until this particular section, were the combat serves no purpose but to soak up precious seconds. For a medium that is designed to be enoyed during my free time, which is limited,  that is a grave problem. If you have no such restraints on your time, and you think scything through waves of mooks for no reason is a good use of that time, and important to the integrity of the gaming medium, then you are completely free to not skip combat.

When I don't feel like enjoying a story, I play a game where the story is negligable, or non-existent. It's not as if there is any shortage in that area.

A game - for it to be a game - has to have gameplay. Story-driven or not, if you allow the skipping of gameplay, it becomes less of a game, even if narrative is untouched.

[CrimsonZephyr]

strive wrote...

I truly wouldn't care if there was a simulate combat option. Although if it encouraged devs to get lazy with combat/gameplay because 'people skip it anyways' then I would be strongly against it. I'm not going to pay 60$ for an interactive movie.

That is exactly what it would do. If people could skip gameplay, gameplay would be under less scrutiny, ergo gameplay would suffer and the game would suffer.

[Tryynity]

I thought of another benefit to having the choice to skip combat.

I tried Mass Effect because literally all my friends raved about it and how immersive it was.

I loved it up until the part I found I could not shoot for $#!t - auto target would have helped this problem, however it wasnt available and I eventually had to quit it and I have never yet got to see the awesome story and relationships I hear about (other than in bits a pieces via YouTube)

It would be great to have a skip combat and move on for any shooter I play - I love archer and find it too frustrating in skyrim also and so avoid it. Even though I applaud the realism of having to aim to shoot and think it is awesome - Also the lock & pick thing, I totally love that feature, that frustrated me at first and I would break every pick in my inventory until my son showed me the knack - sadly I am a hopeless cause with shooters he will attest to trying to help me LOL

I just can think of why having the option would be a bad thing - other than perhaps development time and complications.

Modifié par Tryynity, 25 février 2012 - 07:48 .

[Orian Tabris]

Wow... just  3 days ago, this thread had one page. Now it's got like 10...
Go figure... [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Personally, I think story is just as important as gameplay, but gameplay should always come first. Even if the game is terrible, the developers should focus on gameplay. In fact, especially in terrible games, since that's the only thing stopping people from never playing it again.

As for skipping cutscenes, I believe a 'skip cutscene' button is essential to any game with said. Preferrably with a pause menu, in case you get interrupted by someone or something.

[batlin]

Plaintiff wrote...

What skills does D&D test? Your ability to roll dice and do fairly basic math? Perhaps your ability to think creatively to escape hypothetical situations? That excuse, I'd actually buy. But such a skill can be tested in a scenario that relies on personal relationships or politics just as easily as in a scenario that involves combat or dungeon crawling.

A "game" is just "structured play". As long as structure and play are both present, anything is a game.

I'm going to assume you never played D&D before. Yes, rolling dice decides outcomes, but there are modifiers and actions that depend more heavily on strategy and character building that ultimately mean more than the roll of the dice do. And the Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees with your definition of a game.

Also, bad form for blatantly ignoring the other half of my post.

Tryynity wrote...

I thought of another benefit to having the choice to skip combat.

I tried Mass Effect because literally all my friends raved about it and how immersive it was.

I loved it up until the part I found I could not shoot for $#!t - auto target would have helped this problem, however it wasnt available and I eventually had to quit it and I have never yet got to see the awesome story and relationships I hear about (other than in bits a pieces via YouTube)

It would be great to have a skip combat and move on for any shooter I play - I love archer and find it too frustrating in skyrim also and so avoid it. Even though I applaud the realism of having to aim to shoot and think it is awesome - Also the lock & pick thing, I totally love that feature, that frustrated me at first and I would break every pick in my inventory until my son showed me the knack - sadly I am a hopeless cause with shooters he will attest to trying to help me LOL

I just can think of why having the option would be a bad thing - other than perhaps development time and complications.

Overcoming challenges is what makes progressing all the more rewarding. And it's already been said to death, what if there's a plot-critical part of a game that happens during combat?

[HanErlik]

If they will keep DA2's combat in the third game, I completely agree with Jen Hepler about skip combat button. Killing waves of dozens of clones just for crossing a street is not what I want in a RPG. But if they manage to get rid of spawning clones and put a sensible combat system instead, skip button will not be necesarry.

Modifié par HanErlik, 25 février 2012 - 10:15 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@batlin: Have you ever stopped to think that some people don't find winning mindless combats rewarding? That when it's finally finally over, what's going through their heads is not "Woohoo! I beat them!" but "Thank f#$%ing God that's over"?

I don't play Bioware games for the combat and consider it more a necessary evil of the RPG genre, one I'm willing to endure for the sake of liking the rest of the game. This is not to say there haven't been some combats I've enjoyed, but there are plenty more I could have done without. Much like banal fetch quests.

And name me one plot-critical part of a Bioware game that happens during actual combat--not a dialogue screen or cinematic.

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
A game - for it to be a game - has to have gameplay. Story-driven or not, if you allow the skipping of gameplay, it becomes less of a game, even if narrative is untouched.

You do realise that RPGs allow the skipping of gameplay all the time, right? That you can say no to quests that aren't plot-critical, or never activate a sidequest? Are you now going to advocate forcing players to complete every quest so that they don't skip any of it, intentionally or otherwise, thereby making it 'less of a game'?

Edit: spelling

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 25 février 2012 - 11:02 .

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Diverse armour selections aid verisimilitude.

Origins wasn't exactly a success in that respect.

But to get back to the topic at hand: I notice that some posters have brought up the fact that Hepler mentioned aspects of gaming besides combat that she does not like: Inventory Management, Crafting, Character Customisation.

"You can't skip those!" "They'e integral to the RPG experience!"

Actually, no. No they are not. None of that has anything to do with the definition of "Role-play". In role-play, you play a role. It is really that simple. The aspects that Hepler does not like, while traditional, are all ancillary to that concept, and there are plenty of examples of role-play games across the board that demonstrate this.

If a DM runs a D&D session where there is no combat; and no loot to find, no tools or traps or dungeons to navigate, and is based almost entirely on interpersonal relationships or politics, is it any less of a role-playing game? Are you not playing a role? Are the Fighting Fantasy series of gamebooks any less of a role-playing experience because they give you a fixed character with a canon backstory and a clear goal? Are all the options for how you choose to complete the story suddenly irrelevent because you didn't get to customise your character? Or because you could skip battles simply by flicking through the pages?

As for the argument of story and combat being integrated: well, thanks to the story of FF XIII-2, I'm facing useless trash mobs every five seconds, literally. I get no gold from them, I get less than ten points of EXP per battle. The fights are not challenging in any sense, the enemies are all identical and I am rewarded with pathetic amounts of the same kind of loot over and over. Just walking to the other side of the room to pick up treasure is taking five times longer than it should. In all other sections of the game so far, even though there was a variety of enemies and combat was a worthwhile pursuit in terms of rewards, I had the option of avoiding combat if I so choose, by simply not engaging the enemies in the field. I do not have this option here because there are too many to avoid, they actively chase you, and the level design of this area is cramped and maze-like.

I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Umm, duh,.. What you consider is "role play", or what you think constitutes a RPG is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what a big enough group of gamers will buy, to recover development costs. And thus what they expect or want from a game labeled 'RPG'. And while that varies greatly, interactive movies first made their debut around the time of the appearance of the CD, and were spectacular failures. Nobody wants them.

"I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles".

But that's so easy. Do I even have to spell it out? I'd never buy a *game* like that. And I'm convinced very few would. So unless you intend to buy +2 mil copies yourself, you should not be able to skip those battles because the developers would go bancrupt. A very big part of the quality, the magic, that makes me buy into a cRPG-story, is that it has to have a towering obstacle, a challenge, to dread and overcome. A game that offered the option of being ready-cheated lacks that quality. I'd just spit in it's direction. No publisher offering that would ever get anything from me. And I don't think I represent a minority (in this particular regard).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 février 2012 - 12:00 .

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

...while that varies greatly, interactive movies first made their debut around the time of the appearance of the CD, and were spectacular failures. Nobody wants them.

...A very big part of the quality, the magic, that makes me buy into a cRPG-story, is that it has to have a towering obstacle, a challenge, to dread and overcome. A game that offered the option of being ready-cheated lacks that quality. I'd just spit in it's direction. No publisher offering that would ever get anything from me. And I don't think I represent a minority (in this particular regard).

Amen to that. I was there, when the strength of interactive movie-based games failed...

I generally play 'story-heavy' RPG's a la Bioware as a kind of interactive story interspersed with (hopefully enjoyable) bits of combat and exploration. But while Biowarian storytelling may be relatively good by videogame standards, it can't hold a candle to the better movies and TV series. And without the actual gameplay - the fighting, the exploring - a Biowarian game risks becoming a subpar B-movie with uneven pacing, a lot of hokey voice acting and a surprisingly large amount of bad writing. Better perhaps than the worst of pulp movies, but inferior to the better ones, let alone the real classics. Without a sense of struggle and the personal investment in the character and story that this brings, not much else remains. Might as well watch the cutscenes on Youtube.

I can sympathise with people with kids who don't have the time to play a large RPG. A friend of mine who recently became the mother of twins and has a busy job as a medical specialist in training gave up on Dragon Age and Skyrim precisely because she no longer has the time. But I do think that the solution for that person would not be to watch a crappy B/C pulp movie with some interactive dialog, but to fall back on novels, movies and shorter, more casual games. Better a number of relatively short but full, high-quality experiences than a castrated so-so lengthy one, I say.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 25 février 2012 - 03:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@batlin: Have you ever stopped to think that some people don't find winning mindless combats rewarding? That when it's finally finally over, what's going through their heads is not "Woohoo! I beat them!" but "Thank f#$%ing God that's over"?

I don't play Bioware games for the combat and consider it more a necessary evil of the RPG genre, one I'm willing to endure for the sake of liking the rest of the game. This is not to say there haven't been some combats I've enjoyed, but there are plenty more I could have done without. Much like banal fetch quests.

But I'm betting you have played a game before that had gameplay or combat that you liked, right? At least once? Or is it possible that there could be an RPG gameplay element you haven't experienced that you would really like in lieu of combat or as a workaround to it? 

I don't really think any of the posters in this conversation who are speaking out against a Skip Button loved DA2's combat. In fact, by my second playthrough, I found it as banal as the fetch quest. But I have played games in the past where combat was a ton of fun, or that allowed me to utilize other skills or routes to avoid combat and come to different conclusions or outcomes.

But why would a developer spend extra zots in improving or innovating the combat experience, when they can just point to the Skip Button and say "players can just skip it, there's no need to cater to those who don't like it." That's the fear - that's the risk. Even a Story mode concept like suggested for ME3 could have this undesired outcome of design simplicity, although it still could have plot essential events during gameplay (although how you can have much go on in combat when all bosses only take two shots is a little difficult to imagine).

You do realise that RPGs allow the skipping of gameplay all the time, right? That you can say no to quests that aren't plot-critical, or never activate a sidequest? Are you now going to advocate forcing players to complete every quest so that they don't skip any of it, intentionally or otherwise, thereby making it 'less of a game'?

True. But you do not get the bonuses of extra XP, extra gold, extra equipment and, for those who love story, extra dialogue or influence on the world and story.

So there is a prize for those who do, or a penalty for those who don't, depending on your perspective. A Skip Button treats everyone the same, offering the same reward for the player who does no work versus the player who puts lots of effort in.

[Wittand25]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But I'm betting you have played a game before that had gameplay or combat that you liked, right? At least once? Or is it possible that there could be an RPG gameplay element you haven't experienced that you would really like in lieu of combat or as a workaround to it? 

Problem here is that not everybody likes the same things. if Player A likes the combat of game A, but player B likes the combat of game B. What is the developer supposed to do ? Waste resources trying to implement both kinds (not that that would even be possible), or decide to stick with one system and make the other player unhappy ?

But why would a developer spend extra zots in improving or innovating the combat experience, when they can just point to the Skip Button and say "players can just skip it, there's no need to cater to those who don't like it." That's the fear - that's the risk. Even a Story mode concept like suggested for ME3 could have this undesired outcome of design simplicity, although it still could have plot essential events during gameplay (although how you can have much go on in combat when all bosses only take two shots is a little difficult to imagine).

Because there are people who like the combat ? Games still come with voice over even thouth players can skip through cutscenes, you still get more quest text even though the summary in the questlog would be sufficient. Just because combat could be avoided does not mean that no effort would go into it.

You do realise that RPGs allow the skipping of gameplay all the time, right? That you can say no to quests that aren't plot-critical, or never activate a sidequest? Are you now going to advocate forcing players to complete every quest so that they don't skip any of it, intentionally or otherwise, thereby making it 'less of a game'?

True. But you do not get the bonuses of extra XP, extra gold, extra equipment and, for those who love story, extra dialogue or influence on the world and story.

So there is a prize for those who do, or a penalty for those who don't, depending on your perspective. A Skip Button treats everyone the same, offering the same reward for the player who does no work versus the player who puts lots of effort in.

So you would be OK with the option if the combat skipper got worse loot or a similar kind of penalty?

Modifié par Wittand25, 25 février 2012 - 03:11 .

[Plaintiff]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Diverse armour selections aid verisimilitude.

Origins wasn't exactly a success in that respect.

But to get back to the topic at hand: I notice that some posters have brought up the fact that Hepler mentioned aspects of gaming besides combat that she does not like: Inventory Management, Crafting, Character Customisation.

"You can't skip those!" "They'e integral to the RPG experience!"

Actually, no. No they are not. None of that has anything to do with the definition of "Role-play". In role-play, you play a role. It is really that simple. The aspects that Hepler does not like, while traditional, are all ancillary to that concept, and there are plenty of examples of role-play games across the board that demonstrate this.

If a DM runs a D&D session where there is no combat; and no loot to find, no tools or traps or dungeons to navigate, and is based almost entirely on interpersonal relationships or politics, is it any less of a role-playing game? Are you not playing a role? Are the Fighting Fantasy series of gamebooks any less of a role-playing experience because they give you a fixed character with a canon backstory and a clear goal? Are all the options for how you choose to complete the story suddenly irrelevent because you didn't get to customise your character? Or because you could skip battles simply by flicking through the pages?

As for the argument of story and combat being integrated: well, thanks to the story of FF XIII-2, I'm facing useless trash mobs every five seconds, literally. I get no gold from them, I get less than ten points of EXP per battle. The fights are not challenging in any sense, the enemies are all identical and I am rewarded with pathetic amounts of the same kind of loot over and over. Just walking to the other side of the room to pick up treasure is taking five times longer than it should. In all other sections of the game so far, even though there was a variety of enemies and combat was a worthwhile pursuit in terms of rewards, I had the option of avoiding combat if I so choose, by simply not engaging the enemies in the field. I do not have this option here because there are too many to avoid, they actively chase you, and the level design of this area is cramped and maze-like.

I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles.

Umm, duh,.. What you consider is "role play", or what you think constitutes a RPG is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what a big enough group of gamers will buy, to recover development costs. And thus what they expect or want from a game labeled 'RPG'. And while that varies greatly, interactive movies first made their debut around the time of the appearance of the CD, and were spectacular failures. Nobody wants them.

"I challenge someone to give me a good reason why I should not be able to skip these battles".

But that's so easy. Do I even have to spell it out? I'd never buy a *game* like that. And I'm convinced very few would. So unless you intend to buy +2 mil copies yourself, you should not be able to skip those battles because the developers would go bancrupt. A very big part of the quality, the magic, that makes me buy into a cRPG-story, is that it has to have a towering obstacle, a challenge, to dread and overcome. A game that offered the option of being ready-cheated lacks that quality. I'd just spit in it's direction. No publisher offering that would ever get anything from me. And I don't think I represent a minority (in this particular regard).

In other words... you're a busybody who cares far too much about how other people play games.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

In her defense, Dragon Age: Origins had a skip combat button, too - it was called running a party with three mages.

(In all seriousness, it might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on execution. Good, because it would force the writers to write a story that could actually stand on its own merits. Bad, because, as many others have pointed out, it would give them an excuse for bad combat design.)