288 réponses à ce sujet

[veramis]

I am going to play ME3 story mode, first playthrough too. Combat can be interesting but the way bioware games have been going recently it's just kill kill kill button smashing and that's not what I like about games. I still don't think Hepler is a good writer.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wittand25 wrote...

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 ?

People don't like the same thing, this is true. But what if combat for mages was significantly different than fighters or rogues? Not just selecting different skills to spam and button mash, but was a genuinely totally different feel and expereince? 

Or what if combat could be skipped, through sneaking? Or through dialgoue (in a way that was more than an off screen dice roll based on your conversation skill points)? Or through a sniper mechanic if you are an archer? Or through a puzzle minigame that incorporates a trap skill or mechanical knowhow?

RPG games have done this in the past, offering multiple ways to approach a situation other than non-stop combat. Games that succeed in making these options diverse and well done (like in the original Fallouts) are heralded as pinacles of RPG gameplay by many. So I wouldn't consider it a waste at all for a developer to invest time in creating multiple venues to attain a goal.

But making it so that you can simply press a button to acheive the goal (or making combat not just easy, but a two second, two shot affair that no one can even come close to playing, let alone fail at) diminishes the need to do anything with gameplay other than have combat-only, non-unique experiences.

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.

Having a Skip Button will not make bad combat inherently, no. And Bioware has obviouisly put a lot of thought into making their combat more enjoyable, although I don't seem to always agree with their tactics or approach. Some would argue that the combat has already turned bad, before a Skip Button is even implemented. Nonetheless, a Skip Button seems to narrow and limit the design scope. Suddenly, we can't have mid-combat story or dialogue, because the story fans might miss some story. And let's not even think about making it so methods other than combat can be used... if they don't like fighting, they can just skip it or change the difficulty so that the fight last a matter of seconds. Why invest more time and resources giving people alternate solutions when we have the outcome we want already in mind, and people can skip it if they don't want to go that route?

That's the dangerous mentality you fall into. Then it spirals - why have crafting? It is only making potions and equipment that makes combat easier. If people want to make combat easier, then they can just use the Skip Button. Why have levels or Specializations? It just gives a different combat experience, unlocking skills and the such. If they don't like combat (since that is the direction DA has moved, all combat-only leveling skills) the way it starts out at level 1, then they can just use the Skip Button. Why have equipable armor, items or weapons at all, really? All of it is just a means to make combat more survivable. And they can just use the Skip Button.

I understand that many people don't care about the meta-gaming aspects of RPGs, or any video games at all, for that matter. I understand that people can love a world and a story but not have the desire or time to plow through hours of gameplay. I really do. As an expectant father, I am preparing myself for the future of limited time with video games.

You know what else I'm preparing myself for? Limited time to watch movies, or read books, or watch sports. I'm not writing the NFL to ask them to only have a ten minute game, where people score touchdowns every thirty seconds. I'm not expecting Hollywood to put out an abbreviated version of the Sherlock Holmes movie that can be consumed in twenty minutes. I'm not looking for George R. R. Martin to write a fifty page Cliff Notes version of his book.

Granted, I COULD read the Cliff Notes. I COULD just watch movie trailers or a spoiler review of a movie. And I COULD check Sportscenter for 10 minutes and see the Sportshighlights. And none of these would affect the original game, movie or sporting event. But the Cliff Notes aren't available the day a book comes out. Sportscenter won't show me the highlights of a game while the game is still going on. And a spoiler review with footage won't be posted the night the movie comes out. But with a game that is shipped with a Skip Button, this is exactly what it is like. Everyone, from the very get-go, will be able to "skip to the good parts." My concern is that the skippable areas aren't going to be considered worth even improving or looking at anymore, in which case that leaves us in a very shallow gaming world.

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

I don't know, I suppose. I'm not looking to penalize the gamers who play in a different manner than me. And I don't care about loot/gear/XP grind enough to say "YESSS! Give me the magic +1,000 Sword of Pwnage! YEAH!" My gaming desires aren't wired like that. I just like a game whose design has paid enough attention to all aspects of the game. For the longest time, story was the minorest of considerations in gaming.

Bioware turned that on its head, telling incredibly good stories inside their games. But now the pendulum has swung the other direction. They are focused on the story to the exclusion of the gameplay. I realize they are passionate about their world and their story, but gameplay progression is just as much a part of a good game as story progression.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 février 2012 - 05:10 .

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...

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

A false and strange conclusion. (How did you arrive at that?)
But nvm, I do see your point. Fair enough. I'm much in the same position. I would want much more tie-ins to logistics, economics, threat-assessment and judgement in gameplay. I'd like Vancian casting, limited ranged ammo, no manna, no autohealth, no autoresurrection,...
But as much as I would have liked a Dragon Age: Origin that was much closer to Baldur's Gate than Dungeon Siege, I have to try to consider what Bioware can sell. Now, I'm not certain they couldn't have sold a BG-style DA well enough, but I'm also even more uncertain about that they could.

So that was what my comment was about. Regardless of our personal preferences, we have to accept that the game must have mass-appeal. (There, I think both DA2 and KoA go the wrong way, but I recognize the reason.) Then we have to decide if there is enough entertainment left for us, in their silly nonsens. If not, we have to go elsewhere.

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Regardless of our personal preferences, we have to accept that the game must have mass-appeal. (There, I think both DA2 and KoA go the wrong way, but I recognize the reason.) Then we have to decide if there is enough entertainment left for us, in their silly nonsens. If not, we have to go elsewhere.

And there's an interesting situation: A good RPG that makes no bones about being an RPG, like The Witcher II or Skyrim, and is done very well, sell very well. So did DA:O. They were successful by most definitions of the term.
The same applies to 'lesser' titles like Dragon Knight Saga and Two Worlds II.
The question is more what kind of success Bioware is gunning for, and that appears to be more in the direction of the more successful FPS franchises. If they persist in this, I expect them to effectively quit the genre, developing relatively narrative-heavy action games. With a fast forward button / extremely easy mode for the combat.

That is, I think, a very risky strategy in the long run. Other studios are much better in making action games, and once they, too, start slapping on the narrative - and some of them are already pretty good at this as well - it will become increasingly difficult for Bioware to differentiate itself.
I have no difficulty imagining a future where Bioware has to compete directly with the descendants of Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Halo, not to mention Deus Ex and God of War, while Bethesda, CDProjekt and some others rule the RPG roost, even if their sales numbers are less spectacular than that of the most succesful of 'narrativized' action games.

[bEVEsthda]

Das Tentakel wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Regardless of our personal preferences, we have to accept that the game must have mass-appeal. (There, I think both DA2 and KoA go the wrong way, but I recognize the reason.) Then we have to decide if there is enough entertainment left for us, in their silly nonsens. If not, we have to go elsewhere.

And there's an interesting situation: A good RPG that makes no bones about being an RPG, like The Witcher II or Skyrim, and is done very well, sell very well. So did DA:O. They were successful by most definitions of the term.
The same applies to 'lesser' titles like Dragon Knight Saga and Two Worlds II.
The question is more what kind of success Bioware is gunning for, and that appears to be more in the direction of the more successful FPS franchises. If they persist in this, I expect them to effectively quit the genre, developing relatively narrative-heavy action games. With a fast forward button / extremely easy mode for the combat.

That is, I think, a very risky strategy in the long run.

I think it's already proven that it's a risky strategy also in the short run. Personally, I do not believe there is a sizeable market for this sort of game. It's the mistake of Spore all over again. The market is imaginary. Once EA had identified the market for Spore as "casual gamers", they assumed childish, simple versions of established kill&exterminate game-genres were more appropriate than any simulation type of game. Beats me why. It's almost as if there is somebody really stupid being really stupid somewhere. Or maybe they were hoping for a Pokemon? Whatever, lots of brilliant, revolutionary game technology just thrown away on nonsense.

I also believe that Dragon Age would eventually have achieved +10 mil sales, if they just had stayed their course. Bethesda have shown it's possible. Have an interesting game idea, then you just have to get the gamers to catch on to it. Don't bend over to whatever some anime&console kids are more used to. Let the gamers get used to the idea instead.

[Realmzmaster]

Would anyone be unhappy if Bioware incorporated an AutoCombat button? Simply allow the programr to run the party in combat and report back if the party lives or dies. Those who want to control the party in battle can and those who who do not can use the AutoCombat button and take their chances with the program running the party. It is not a Skip combat button. It has been successfully used in other crpgs in the past.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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 have played and enjoyed pure action games. But I'm willing to believe people like Hepler wouldn't touch a game like that, thus games that contain combat provide an obstacle to the parts they find fun. Pure story games are rare, and it's not productive to tell them to go watch a movie or read a book, because neither of those things have the same level of interactivity (if at all).

I hope they do think of workarounds for combat, but that will still be a time-consuming barrier to the story gameplay unless the workarounds are always story-based, which is just not going to be realistically possible.

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.

As have I. But I am admittedly an impatient story-hungry gamer. Even if combat is fun initially, when there's a story behind it that's grabbed my interest I simply couldn't care less about the combat. It might be challenging, it might be fun, but it's not what I want. If the story has my interest, I only want combat to be over. I don't want to revel in the fluid animations or be delighted that I can throw a stone and distract them while I sneak past, I want to know what happens next.

(I should cushion that by saying I'd probably never skip combat on my first play, but that's for what I term Stupid Gamer Pride. Even if I don't like the gameplay, I want to finish the game As The Devs Intended. However, I don't see why other gamers must be forced to do similarly until they bow down at the altar of Combat Is Fun.)

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."

As opposed to pointing at books and movies and saying "Enjoy those if you can't hack our game"?

Developers, the good developers, recognise two things: Innovation and accessibility. They want their games to be as fun and enjoyable as possible, and they want anyone to be able to pick it up and play it to the end. They don't want their customers to get so frustrated with something that they end up disuaded from finishing or, worse, hating it. Accessibility does not preclude innovation unless the developers suck.

You, and others, are worrying that a skip combat button would mean the devs would get lazy, stop caring about combat, or stop caring about the customers who like combat. While it's a concern you're allowed to have, it's unfounded. Computer games will always be striving to improve combat because there's such a huge market for 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).

IMO the real fear is that Bioware uses their mysterious stats of who plays the game how to determine that features like X will be removed because only a handful of people used it. That exists for more than ME3's Story Mode.

I don't want the games to end up being watered down any more than you do. But I do want people to be able to enjoy it on their own terms, so long as those terms don't interfere with my own. ME3's an interesting test for this very reason, acknowledging that Easy/Hard modes, which focus solely on challenge, are fundamentally different from Combat/Story modes, which is more a gamer's preference of playstyle.

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.

Also true.

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.

Well, honestly that all depends on how the skip button is programmed.

Also, I'm sorry to say that I can only shake my head if a gamer complains that their victory over the High Dragon means nothing because some other gamer somewhere in the world cheated to kill it. If they're that concerned about having their awesomeness validated by a computer game, maybe a kill button shouldn't allow those who use it to get Achievements.

"Achievement: Pure Victory! Finished the game without using the kill button once."

Not that this will stop people who already use the console to cheat or anything.

[Madmoe77]

WWHD! (What Would Hepler Do) This has really gone on far enough. This is Dragon Age not Dragon's Lair. If people really want that in a game; great campaign for a Dragon's Lair version of Dragon's Age and see if the developers answer your wishes. Dragon Age 3 will be Dragon Age 3. I would play both. But it is beyond time to lay off one single person and both stop idol worshiping this person too. Please before there* are wristbands out in support of this whole thing. Everyone is caught up in the BSN combat simulator!

Modifié par Madmoe77, 25 février 2012 - 11:45 .

[Mr Fixit]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Also, I'm sorry to say that I can only shake my head if a gamer complains that their victory over the High Dragon means nothing because some other gamer somewhere in the world cheated to kill it. If they're that concerned about having their awesomeness validated by a computer game, maybe a kill button shouldn't allow those who use it to get Achievements.

Heh, I also got that impression from some posters here. Seems like their enjoyment of challenging gameplay would be diminished even by the presence of some kind of skip or auto-combat feature. I don't really understand it.

[Ghidorah14]

This lady is stupid.

Her writing is stupid.

The backlash is incredibly stupid.

Those supporting her are NOT stupid.

Those who are pretending she didnt bring at least some on herself are kinda stupid.

Those who think her suggestion of a "skip combat" button is anything other than "stupid" need to stop kidding themselves.

[Meris]

Ghidorah14 wrote... 

This lady is stupid...

Based on a 7 year opinion on matters not of her expertise? Wouldn't that make most everything even more stupid by comparison?

Ghidorah14 wrote...

Her writing is stupid.

As someone who likes dwarven lore, really liked Branka and Hespith and generally played Dragon Age: Origins, I disagree.

Ghidorah14 wrote...

Those who think her suggestion of a "skip combat" button is anything other than "stupid" need to stop kidding themselves.

As someone who believes RPG gameplay is too much about Combat (we even differentiate RPGs by how, strategically or action based, they employ it), I choose to interpret Hepler's personal difficulties as an added incentive for RPG developers to think of making more ways to solve problems without smacking people on the head.

[Sutekh]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Also, I'm sorry to say that I can only shake my head if a gamer complains that their victory over the High Dragon means nothing because some other gamer somewhere in the world cheated to kill it. If they're that concerned about having their awesomeness validated by a computer game, maybe a kill button shouldn't allow those who use it to get Achievements.

Indeed, that's weird. Why do they object to that, but don't bat an eyelid at the different difficulty settings? Shouldn't they be outraged by players getting the same rewards (i.e. getting through the game, having the dialogs, the loot, the cinematics...) in casual as in hard? Aren't there already examples of ways to reward challenge gaming through achievements and such?

I don't see the difference between difficulties and the little skip button. I see it like the ultimate easy, and nothing more; just one additional options for those who would like it. Arguing it would make the devs lazy is as unfounded as saying that casual mode has already done so. Especially considering the vast majority of people buying RPG would still want combat, because it is an important aspect of the "culture" (for lack of a better word), so it would be very counter-productive.

If a little more people buy the game thanks to the addition of a skip button, then more games are sold, more money comes in and (ideally), more resources are then available for the next game, DLC, expack or whatever. On the condition that it doesn't alter the original content - and I don't see why it would - it's win-win.

Really, Hepler just mentioned a little optional tiny skip button, not the end of RPG as we know it, no matter how far some people here are reaching to prove that yes, it would be.


@Ghidorah14

"It's stupid", "She's stupid" and "Stop kidding yourselves" is not only insulting and condescending, but also a very, very poor argument. Just saying.

[Meris]

Sutekh wrote...

If a little more people buy the game thanks to the addition of a skip button, then more games are sold, more money comes in and (ideally), more resources are then available for the next game, DLC, expack or whatever. On the condition that it doesn't alter the original content - and I don't see why it would - it's win-win.

It would hardly be the first (nor the worst) time that BioWare added or changed something to try and achieve a potential market beyond the spirit of their games, but I'd oppose it by principle. First because Dragon Age II reeked of seeking a larger fanbase while alienating the original (not that I actually believe this feature would alienate any of us) but also because I believe that if a given gamer or roleplayer's style is about less combat and more about avoiding it and solving quests without banging someone in the head, then gameplay should account for it.

If not, then by skipping combat, it just feels like a dragon age title would be so devoid of gameplay (because, let's face it*, dragon age gameplay is 70& combat, 20% preparing for combat, 5% making and developing a character(s) - for combat - and 5% interacting with the story) that it would sound like after making RPGs for those who don't play RPGs, BioWare would make games for people who don't actually play games.

*incoming arbitrary numbers, please focus on the point I'm trying to make

Modifié par Meris, 26 février 2012 - 02:43 .

[YohkoOhno]

I think most people are objecting for the same reason you get a lot of complaints on BSN in general. People are fearful if a mode is popular it will change the nature of the game--just like people complain there's no party control, there's no turn-based combat, social games are taking away from popularity, etc.

If somebody could combine a full-fledged RPG with what is known as Interactive Fiction or Visual Novels--with different levels of interactivity, then maybe they'll create a hit. Imagine if say, boss combat could be skipped with a cutscene by earning, for instance, karma points from other social activity, maybe that would be prudent. Or maybe a game could be designed with level--a choice of full combat or some mini-combat menus--a sort of rock-paper-scissors type thing to keep it interestng but simple and cinematic.

No ideas IMO are inherently bad. Video games are still in relative infancy. Imagine what we can do someday--maybe all games will eventually become visual novels or choose a path animations for the passive and full-bore-RPG like detail for the actively inclined. I see that happening someday.

The big thing is FEAR.  Fans are fearful that Bioware will have a huge hit with something they don't like and abandon them.  Well, that's a risk that happens a lot in this industry--games are just expensive to make and you can't always take risks or deal with a shrinking audience.  Plus, taking chances and thinking outside the box can lead to rewards later on.  I see nothing wrong with experimenting.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 26 février 2012 - 02:44 .

[Meris]

YohkoOhno wrote...
The big thing is FEAR.  Fans are fearful that Bioware will have a huge hit with something they don't like and abandon them.

I wouldn't blame BioWare for trying something new, with a new IP.

If they want to innovate so much, then they could at least not slap the Dragon Age name on it. If Origins sell well enough to warrant a sequel, then let 2 also be a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. If not then let it die and let's see if your new formula is as good or better.

Modifié par Meris, 26 février 2012 - 02:52 .

[Tryynity]

I talked to my teenage son about this as he plays alot of combat/shooter games. He was all blah, blah, blah what is the point of a game with no combat - he seemed to miss the point I said the option to skip.

I love RPG storyline and dialogue and relationships but I often skip much of the blah, blah, blah in a conversation sometimes NPCs rave on more than even I do.

Anyway, he had no arguement in the end, because he is the one that runs to find cheat online anytime he strikes a challenge that he cant solve within 10mins of gameplay - I wonder how many of the people here, for combat and the challenge resort to cheats, which I have never done, although I will call in my son to get my character through bits that I cant handle.

What I dont see the point of is cheats.

I also gave up on Prince of Persia because of all the stupid Light Seed collecting - I really wanted to see the end of that story too.

So again I say to developers out there if you are reading this thread " Yay the skip option for everything" this way your game will playable by a wider audience of people.

Modifié par Tryynity, 26 février 2012 - 03:14 .

[Sutekh]

Meris wrote...
It would hardly be the first (nor the worst) time that BioWare added or changed something to try and achieve a potential market beyond the spirit of their games, but I'd oppose it by principle. First because Dragon Age II reeked of seeking a larger fanbase while alienating the original (not that I actually believe this feature would alienate any of us) but also because I believe that if a given gamer or roleplayer's style is about less combat and more about avoiding it and solving quests without banging someone in the head, then gameplay should account for it.

Nope, it shouldn't. If people want to skip combat, more power to them, but they should be aware that by doing so, they also skip gameplay and a good chunk of the game. Hepler didn't ask for a profound change to the nature of the game but for the possibility to skip combat just like the ESC key skips dialogues and cinematics. Nothing more.

If not, then by skipping combat, it just feels like a dragon age title would be so devoid of gameplay (because, let's face it*, dragon age gameplay is 70& combat, 20% preparing for combat, 5% making and developing a character(s) - for combat - and 5% interacting with the story) that it would sound like after making RPGs for those who don't play RPGs, BioWare would make games for people who don't actually play games.

*incoming arbitrary numbers, please focus on the point I'm trying to make

Don't worry, I'm not one to nitpick over numbers (mostly ), although I do think that way more than 5% are interacting with the story. Regardless, and as aforementioned, it's not about changing the nature of the game, as opposed to what happened with DA2, although that is a bit debatable. Now, if gameplay could be improved by adding non-combat activities, such as real crafting, sneaking, puzzle solving or even non-violent quests resolution, it would be a very good thing (we had a glimpse of that in the MotA DLC. It was nice.) It's not related to the skip button question, though, but more to the need (IMHO) for thinking out of the combat box when it comes to cRPG.

So, back to the skip button, the idea isn't to change the game around that possibility, but to implement it as an option for those who want / need to skip one / some / all combat for whatever reason, without the need for the console (and the correlated risk to break the game). After all, the ESC key doesn't mean less cinematics or less dialogues, so I'm at a loss as to why people think the very same function applied to combat would mean less of it, poorer gameplay and changing the nature of the genre.

Modifié par Sutekh, 26 février 2012 - 03:25 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Heh, I also got that impression from some posters here. Seems like their enjoyment of challenging gameplay would be diminished even by the presence of some kind of skip or auto-combat feature. I don't really understand it.

It's a mindset I can only understand for games that have high score tables and leader boards, where gamers are forever immortalised for getting through the Fade in 5 minutes, killing the Archdemon in 3, or slaughtering a hundred darkspawn in under 60 seconds.

Dragon Age tosses out a few achievements for doing this or killing that, but then Dragon Age also gives you an achievement for going out into Kirkwall at night time. I felt so accomplished upon getting that.

Suffice to say, I can understand a competitive attitude when a game is pitting one gamer's skill against another. But single player RPGs don't do that.

Sutekh wrote...
Indeed, that's weird. Why do they object to that, but don't bat an eyelid at the different difficulty settings? Shouldn't they be outraged by players getting the same rewards (i.e. getting through the game, having the dialogs, the loot, the cinematics...) in casual as in hard?

I know! XD

Meris wrote...

It would hardly be the first (nor the worst) time that BioWare added or changed something to try and achieve a potential market beyond the spirit of their games, but I'd oppose it by principle. First because Dragon Age II reeked of seeking a larger fanbase while alienating the original (not that I actually believe this feature would alienate any of us) but also because I believe that if a given gamer or roleplayer's style is about less combat and more about avoiding it and solving quests without banging someone in the head, then gameplay should account for it.

The alienation point is an excellent one, and I'm glad you added that bracket point. I agree.

I also somewhat agree with your second point, but I think there are appropriate times where combat should not be avoidable. For instance, the duel with Loghain in DA:O. You can choose a champion, but you still have to control that champion and win the fight yourself and you have to win for the game to proceed. What would be an appropriate gameplay way to bypass personally participating in the combat?

If not, then by skipping combat, it just feels like a dragon age title would be so devoid of gameplay (because, let's face it*, dragon age gameplay is 70& combat, 20% preparing for combat, 5% making and developing a character(s) - for combat - and 5% interacting with the story) that it would sound like after making RPGs for those who don't play RPGs, BioWare would make games for people who don't actually play games.

You make that sound like a bad thing, though. A lot of the people who want to skip combat have cited it's because the combat makes the game too long for them. Why would they complain about the reduction in gameplay, if that's the very thing they'd happily sacrifice? It wouldn't affect the people who like combat, unless they're too weak-willed to resist using the function themselves.

*incoming arbitrary numbers, please focus on the point I'm trying to make

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 26 février 2012 - 04:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I think most people are objecting for the same reason you get a lot of complaints on BSN in general. People are fearful if a mode is popular it will change the nature of the game--just like people complain there's no party control, there's no turn-based combat, social games are taking away from popularity, etc.

That subsequent change is what should draw the objections, though, not the initial offer of an option.

Look at the star ratings on items in DA2.  The star rating offers incomplete and often misleading information about the effectiveness of an item, but it removes the need to look at or understand detailed stats.  As long as the detailed stats are still available, there's no reason to object to the star ratings.  If, however, the detailed stats are not available (or sufficiently well documented to be understandable), then the designers' reliance upon the star ratings to convey information becomes a problem.

[HiroVoid]

Sutekh wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Also, I'm sorry to say that I can only shake my head if a gamer complains that their victory over the High Dragon means nothing because some other gamer somewhere in the world cheated to kill it. If they're that concerned about having their awesomeness validated by a computer game, maybe a kill button shouldn't allow those who use it to get Achievements.

Indeed, that's weird. Why do they object to that, but don't bat an eyelid at the different difficulty settings? Shouldn't they be outraged by players getting the same rewards (i.e. getting through the game, having the dialogs, the loot, the cinematics...) in casual as in hard? Aren't there already examples of ways to reward challenge gaming through achievements and such?

I don't see the difference between difficulties and the little skip button. I see it like the ultimate easy, and nothing more; just one additional options for those who would like it. Arguing it would make the devs lazy is as unfounded as saying that casual mode has already done so. Especially considering the vast majority of people buying RPG would still want combat, because it is an important aspect of the "culture" (for lack of a better word), so it would be very counter-productive.

If a little more people buy the game thanks to the addition of a skip button, then more games are sold, more money comes in and (ideally), more resources are then available for the next game, DLC, expack or whatever. On the condition that it doesn't alter the original content - and I don't see why it would - it's win-win.

Really, Hepler just mentioned a little optional tiny skip button, not the end of RPG as we know it, no matter how far some people here are reaching to prove that yes, it would be.


@Ghidorah14

"It's stupid", "She's stupid" and "Stop kidding yourselves" is not only insulting and condescending, but also a very, very poor argument. Just saying.

Actually, I don't know if they did it in DAII, but I'm pretty sure I remember certain items being locked out if you played on lower difficulties in DAO and ME2.

[HiroVoid]

Meris wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...
The big thing is FEAR.  Fans are fearful that Bioware will have a huge hit with something they don't like and abandon them.

I wouldn't blame BioWare for trying something new, with a new IP.

If they want to innovate so much, then they could at least not slap the Dragon Age name on it. If Origins sell well enough to warrant a sequel, then let 2 also be a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. If not then let it die and let's see if your new formula is as good or better.

That was probably the point of trying it in DA2 as well.  Besides thinking DA2 would sell better, it's a lot more reliable to try new things on this franchise than a new franchise because you know it'll sell regardless.....just not how much the next enrtry'll sell.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Tryynity wrote...

I talked to my teenage son about this as he plays alot of combat/shooter games. He was all blah, blah, blah what is the point of a game with no combat - he seemed to miss the point I said the option to skip.

[...]

Anyway, he had no arguement in the end, because he is the one that runs to find cheat online anytime he strikes a challenge that he cant solve within 10mins of gameplay - I wonder how many of the people here, for combat and the challenge resort to cheats, which I have never done, although I will call in my son to get my character through bits that I cant handle.

That makes me curious as to how many people here, say, looked up the solution for the floor panel puzzle in Mark of the Assassin instead of overcoming this challenging part of gameplay themselves.

(Next difficulty modes games can benefit from including: Derp? / I'm Awesome At Tetris. / I Can Kill You With My Brain.)

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 26 février 2012 - 08:35 .

[Mr Fixit]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Heh, I also got that impression from some posters here. Seems like their enjoyment of challenging gameplay would be diminished even by the presence of some kind of skip or auto-combat feature. I don't really understand it.

It's a mindset I can only understand for games that have high score tables and leader boards, where gamers are forever immortalised for getting through the Fade in 5 minutes, killing the Archdemon in 3, or slaughtering a hundred darkspawn in under 60 seconds.

Dragon Age tosses out a few achievements for doing this or killing that, but then Dragon Age also gives you an achievement for going out into Kirkwall at night time. I felt so accomplished upon getting that.

Suffice to say, I can understand a competitive attitude when a game is pitting one gamer's skill against another. But single player RPGs don't do that.

Something occured to me while I was thinking about Sylvius' comment on another thread where he was expressing his vehement opposition to the mere existence of a respec option like Maker's Sigh, although it was purely optional, and noone forced you to use it.

I think some people (not saying it's true for all with the same position) go for such a profound sense of immersion in the gameworld, that even simply knowing there's the *option* to accomplish something outside regular gameplay, for no documented and/or logically explainable in-world reason, significantly affects their ability to immerse themselves, as if it makes the world itself less real somehow.

I think.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 26 février 2012 - 09:21 .

[bEVEsthda]

I think a game with a 'skip combat' option would get a very bad rep and sell very poorly. And for a good reason.

I think you've all missed something important here. If you're gonna be able to have such an option in a game, combat has to be well isolated from the story and the rest of the gameplay. This you seem to already take for granted. I just have to assume that is because of the makeup of these forums these days. It's not like many different opinions are well represented here any longer.

Now this is already the case very much in DA2 and a big reason for my dislike for this game. It was a strong trend even in DA:O. But my point is that I want RPGs to go in the exact opposite direction. Back to where they started. Where all these things where integrated.

Otherwise you have DA2: Donkey Kong platformer 'bash-the baddies-pick-up-the glowing-orbs', 'whittle-down-the-Boss' combat gameplay, and then a cinematic story on the side as embellishment. Ridiculous and contemptible excuse for *development* of the RPG genre. "Innovative" -Bah!

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 26 février 2012 - 09:31 .

[Mr Fixit]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I think you've all missed something important here. If you're gonna be able to have such an option in a game, combat has to be well isolated from the story and the rest of the gameplay. This you seem to already take for granted.

But I agree with you. I am in favor of (or rather not opposed to) the skip button if, ond only if, Bioware continues down this road where combat is completely isolated from the story, and ultimately serves as padding. Sad as it may be, and I've already said a thing or three about that on these forums, BioWare seems committed to that path.

Now, if they find a way for combat to actually influence the story and/or if they make a significant part of those filler combats avoidable *through* gameplay (dialogue, skills, stealth...) then, yeah, there wouldn't be a point to skip buttons, and they could potentially even limit the ways you can approach an encounter.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 26 février 2012 - 09:34 .