288 réponses à ce sujet

[mousestalker]

I thought the combat in DA2 was pretty well done. It certainly seemed exciting at the time. My problem with DA2 had a lot to do with the story. DA2 could have used more refinement and polishing. The plot didn't make a lot of sense at points. Motivation for certain actions was lacking and as a result, I felt railroaded at points.

That doesn't mean I hated the game. It just means that I think DA2 was less than it could have been.

Modifié par mousestalker, 22 février 2012 - 01:23 .

[TEWR]

Village Idiot wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I think I have more a question than a comment. I guess (and maybe this has been discussed already so forgive me if I'm rehashing old issues), but why do you think DA2 failed in this endeavor? What could have made it better? More specifically, that is.

Is this question directed at me or the OP?

Er...both?

EDIT: Anyone? ^^

I made a long post in response to you and ended up losing it, so I really don't want to type it all out again.

I can say that for combat in DAII and how it failed imo, my blog is a good indicator of my opinions on the matter along with the few comments at the bottom of it:

http://social.biowar...83/blog/209894/

now, there's one thing I'll retype out because it also helps explain my point:

Darkspawn: The "Prologue" in DAII is a good case about how the combat is so disconnected between the party and the enemies.

In DAO, the Darkspawn used the same animations and some of the same abilities we used. But in DAII, they just attack you en masse without thinking at all (a problem with DAII's combat on the whole). This is in direct contradiction of what we were presented in DAO -- where they thought to a minor extent -- but specifically to Darkspawn Chronicles.

While DC is to be considered a "what would've happened if the Warden died" scenario, the perspective we get into how the Archdemon commands the horde is to be taken as canon. The Archdemon gives its orders to the Alphas and Emissaries in its horde. As a result, they carry them out.

So too should this happen when we fight them. Now, obviously I don't mean we should hear the Archdemon's commands, but I mean that they should be carried out by the gameplay. The Alphas and Emissaries should instruct the Darkspawn to perform tactics.

They should use the same animations we use and some of the same abilities we use, y'know? They should use actual tactics, y'know?

Even outside of the Blight, the Alphas and Emissaries we face still command lesser Darkspawn, so the tactics used should still apply to them. At least when we see an Alpha or Emissary in the vicinity of lesser Darkspawn.

[TEWR]

mousestalker wrote...

I thought the combat in DA2 was pretty well done. It certainly seemed exciting at the time.

 

I think that Bioware did a great job for the animations the party uses -- for the most part save for a few select animations -- but botched up the enemy combat.

So it's half-and-half. One side is done well, for the most part. The other side isn't.

My problem with DA2 had a lot to do with the story. DA2 could have used more refinement and polishing. The plot didn't make a lot of sense at points. Motivation for certain actions was lacking and as a result, I felt railroaded at points.

Agreed. Though I will say that I did end up hating DAII because of that.

[Carmen_Willow]

I usually play a Bioware game the first time through on Casual because I want to see how the story ends. But then, I read like that...first time through quickly, hitting the highlights. If it's a great book, I reread it many times, and each time I get a little more out of it.

I play games the same way. So I guess I can understand why Jen would want a "skip the combat" button, though I think Casual/Easy works well enough for that.

[wangxiuming]

Morducai wrote...

Now I am not saying that story telling has no room in video games, quite the ooposite. I think story telling has become a very imprtant part of video games. However, I think gameplay should always take precedance over any other aspect of a video game. The minute you take gameplay out of the equation then it stops being a video game.

I absolutely agree with this. Games set themselves apart from other entertainment venues because of their interactivity.

That said, gameplay isn't limited to fighting or finding treasure or fiddling with inventory. A big part of Bioware's gameplay comes directly from the player's ability to make choices in the storyline, to choose lines of dialogue that reflect their character, and developing friendships/rivalries/romances with the companions. To me, this is all gameplay too. There are consequences and payoffs for pursuing this line of gameplay, especially in Bioware games.

As far as I know, Miss Hepler has never advocated for taking gameplay out of games. I don't think she ever said that she wanted to take combat out of games either. Rather, she made some comments about how she wasn't so great at the fighting, and that if she could skip past the fights, then she would. She prefers to immerse herself in the story-aspects of the game, decision-making, interacting with NPCs, etc. That is her own, personal play style.

That doesn't mean she expects any of us to do the same. We're all free to enjoy games any which way we like. Game mods exist for this reason. As do cheat codes. And the developer console.

Personally, I love combat. I played DAO on nightmare, DA2 on Hard, and Mass Effect on Veteran & Insanity. That doesn't make my opinion more "right" and Ms. Hepler's opinion "wrong" though.The reaction she's received from a large portion of the gaming community has been unfair. Her opinion and play style are just that - her own opinion and play style. They have no bearing on how I, or anybody else, play any game.

People derive entertainment from games in different ways. That's part of what makes games great: they can be celebrated, appreciated and enjoyed by a wide audience and for different reasons. As a gaming community, we should be embracing that - not telling each other how to enjoy games.

Edit: better word choices.

Modifié par wangxiuming, 22 février 2012 - 02:49 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Morducai wrote...
What she wants, as a writer, is to enjoy a wonderful crafted story without having to, or to have as little to do, with the actual gameplay.  Basically what she describes is a game without gameplay which to all intent and proposes is a movie, book, interactive story, or what ever you like to call it. I understand her desire to have the same rules we apply on gameplay as they do with storytelling, but those rules just don't work well for this medium. As DA2 clearly demonstrated that the same formula can't work for two different situations.

I think it's incorrect to say she wants as little to do with the gameplay, because in some games the story is as much of the gameplay as combat. In Bioware RPGs, they are both important facets of interactivity.

Consider Planescape: Torment. It was about 90% dialogue and exploration. There was very little combat except in some key areas. Gameplay was almost all interaction with the world and its denizens as opposed to cutting a bloody swathe through them. Except for the intro and outro and certain spells, there were no cinematics. Did PS:T feel less of a game for its lack of combat?

Hepler doesn't want less gameplay. She wants to have the option to skip combat, which is a part of gameplay, to get to the aspects of gameplay she likes, namely the story. I can sympathise. There are times I've had enough of combat and want to get to the next dialogue/quest point, especially when I'm really enjoying the story. And come on, there are already functions in place allowing the player to skip cutscenes and dialogue, so why not combat? Grinding through meaningless, faceless foes to get to the next good bit isn't everyone's idea of fun. Not everyone has to like it, but at present we all have to deal with it.

Finally, Hepler was asked, in an interview, what she, personally, prefers/doesn't like in games she plays. She is not lobbying for combat to be removed, merely saying that if she had the choice she'd skip it. It's a personal opinion, nothing more or less than our own preferences/dislikes about games.

[TooManyFreakingAccts]

Fox In The Box wrote...

Wasn't it just to skip combat sequences for those who wanted to? There is more to gameplay than just combat, you know. While I like fighting, endless streams of enemies tend to become more tedious than fun for me. There were several points in DA2 - one where I had encountered no less than five night-time gangs in a row, each of them spawning three waves of enemies - where I really envied PC-users their "killallhostiles" console command.

This is more a function of the appallingly bad combat in DA2.

The idea that you would remove combat from a videogame instead of making it good is just so truly idiotic that I cannot find words to argue about this.

The Hepler fiasco is a real shame, not only because this poor woman was harassed and insulted, but also because it has caused BioWare to rally around her, and because it has caused people to regard her highly for no reason other than that they have this idea of themselves as good people.  Both of these latter two things mean that a long tenure at BioWare is very likely for Hepler, which is a minor tragedy in and of itself.

(Obviously I don't advocate insulting her for the sake of insulting her; but I think that the severe criticisms against her work are entirely valid, as I do not believe she is well suited to the job she has presently.)

The best possible outcome for everyone (Hepler, gamers, BioWare) would be for her to leave BioWare voluntarily with a very nice severance package and go on to do something she really loves, as it is patently clear that whatever that is, it isn't videogames.

Modifié par TooManyFreakingAccts, 22 février 2012 - 05:01 .

[Morroian]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

The idea that you would remove combat from a videogame instead of making it good is just so truly idiotic that I cannot find words to argue about this.

So those games which have auto resolve combat as an option are idiotic?

[TooManyFreakingAccts]

Morroian wrote...

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

The idea that you would remove combat from a videogame instead of making it good is just so truly idiotic that I cannot find words to argue about this.

So those games which have auto resolve combat as an option are idiotic?

If the game was an unending series of autoresolve combat buttons, then yes, I think that is an entirely fair conclusion.

Imagine putting an autoresolve combat button in Call of Duty.  That is a pretty good analogue for the idea of putting one in Mass Effect, and I'm not sure why anyone would think that is reasonable.

Modifié par TooManyFreakingAccts, 22 février 2012 - 05:03 .

[Morroian]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

Imagine putting an autoresolve combat button in Call of Duty.  That is a pretty good analogue for the idea of putting one in Mass Effect, and I'm not sure why anyone would think that is reasonable.

COD is nothing but combat. RPGs have more to them.

[John Epler]

 I think there's a distinction to be made between avoiding combat in an organic, 'in world' fashion versus a sort of meta-feature where you can easily or automatically resolve combat. In the former case, of course, it's far more of an investment, although it can certainly be a worthwhile one - especially if you let the player feel clever for avoiding the combat (STALKER (take a shot) does this to a degree, as the factional enemies will often fight each other, and every humanoid will fight a mutant. Patient or clever players can bait groups into conflict with each other and then let the chips fall as they may).

The latter is more mechanical, and in genres or sub genres where story or interactive narrative is an equally large draw as the combat and more traditional 'gameplay' elements, I really don't see an issue with allowing for some sort of easy resolve option for the fights. I'd hestitate to put in a 'skip combat completely' option, just because it feels as though it can be an easy way to ensure that fights have little narrative grounding. But a difficulty setting where your party can more or less take care of things by themselves and the risk of death is practically nonexistent? I don't really see any issue.

Of course, at the end of the day, everyone has different tolerances for these sorts of things. I'd be happy with a single-save, Dark Souls system where everything you do has lasting consequences on your character and a misstep can set you back half an hour or more. I realize that I am in the minority, however, and am in favour of providing as many people as possible the tools to enjoy our games. Me, I'd never use it, but why its existence should bother me is something I don't really understand.

[Gemini1179]

JohnEpler wrote...
 Me, I'd never use it, but why its existence should bother me is something I don't really understand.

This is how a lot of people feel about the inequality of SGR's in BW games. Ultimately, the reason often provided is the allocation of resources, therefore, in this discussion you will inevitably get the question of why resources would be directed into creating an option that 'the minority' are in favour of. I'm in your camp, if they can do it, it doesn't bother me because I won't use it, but I'd hate to see for other things people have been asking for to then get held back once again because of it.

[Mitsukashira]

The people that are best at their jobs often have a passion for it; they love and know every aspect of what they do. Jennifer Hepler apparently doesn't know even the basics of how to play a game, and can't even use the in-game map. To not be able to use such a basic functions makes me question if she even understands the gameplay outside of combat (basic navigation). If she doesn't even know this much, how can she effectively collaborate with the rest of the team to integrate the story "into" the gameplay? As much as I love Bioware games, there aren't many ways where the plot moves forward during "interesting" gameplay; I don't count two characters staring at each other and making generic gestures, while you select an option on a dialouge wheel, interesting.

It isn't about a story and then gameplay, but a story that is told hand in hand with gameplay. Take a look at the Uncharted series or Bioshock, and tell me that those games would have been better without the "gameplay". Look at any great "game" and tell me that skipping past the gameplay sections (any type) would have made for a better game. They wouldn't have, because they successfully, and beautifully, combine the gameplay and the story. A Bioware game without the "combat" or "gameplay" is really just an interactive movie, and it would be a rather fragmented one with lots of odd jumping between scenes.

Jennifer Hepler does not understand this. If she understood this, she would not have made those comments (taking out game-play elements, namely combat). Gameplay is a chore to her. Her main dissatisfaction appeared to be the combat, but if that was gone, she would certainly single out other areas as well. I know, that's quite the assumption, yeah? Maybe, but her passion is in the story and the writing, so she really doesn't care about the gameplay. She's looking to experience the story, not the gameplay. I believe she stated that she wanted the frustrating bits out, to skip over that stuff, but apparently she isn't very good at any aspect of gaming-- she stated she doesn't like playing them, right? Why is this such a problem? Why is one woman's opinion such an issue with so many gamers?

Imagine if developers actually developed games with this method of thinking. Just think about any game you really love, and imagine if the writing and gameplay were separate, so the player who wishes to skip gameplay was not given a lesser story experience. It would unravel all of the work that talented developers put into fusing the two together. You wouldn't get a game like Uncharted 2, where the gameplay and story can go so well hand in hand. You wouldn't get the opening sequence of Mass Effect 2, one of the best points of the entire game. You wouldn't get the wonderful, atmospheric world that is Rapture. It would create a game where everything you do, all the inputs to the controller, are essentially meaningless and have no real impact on the cutscene or dialogue that is to follow. You could not add dialogue or story to the gameplay elements, because then the gamers that wish to skip it would miss out, and the developer certainly doesn't want anyone to miss out on the wonderful story they've crafted. I know I wouldn't.

Why was Dragon Age II so bland and boring? A part of it was that the combat had nothing to do with the story. You fought, and then got some dialogue. Nothing ever happened during combat. No interesting set pieces, no evolution of the situation, and all so the player can be assured they wouldn't miss a nugget of the story due to their shortcomings in the combat. You either won and advanced the story, or died and tried again. Even Final Fantasy VII had moments where the battle was interrupted, or there was some dialogue, and that's a type of game that is jarring in it's shift from exploration, to combat, to cutscene. Dragon Age Origins even had a battle where loss just meant a slight shift in the events in the story, and the possible outcome of a character. Why didn't Dragon Age II have more moments like this? There are other games that don't exactly mold combat and storytelling into a wonderful whole, but that's where games need to evolve.

This is obviously not an issue of bashing a person that is unskilled in gaming. This is about a fundamentally flawed philosophy in game design, and the mindset of a woman in an important position in crafting video games for a very influential and successful studio. Some people aren't intelligent enough to get at the real issue, and lash out at Jennifer Hepler in cruel ways, but that doesn't change the fact that she isn't good for gaming, and she isn't good for the evolution of the RPG.

[TooManyFreakingAccts]

JohnEpler wrote...

 I think there's a distinction to be made between avoiding combat in an organic, 'in world' fashion versus a sort of meta-feature where you can easily or automatically resolve combat. In the former case, of course, it's far more of an investment, although it can certainly be a worthwhile one - especially if you let the player feel clever for avoiding the combat (STALKER (take a shot) does this to a degree, as the factional enemies will often fight each other, and every humanoid will fight a mutant. Patient or clever players can bait groups into conflict with each other and then let the chips fall as they may).

The latter is more mechanical, and in genres or sub genres where story or interactive narrative is an equally large draw as the combat and more traditional 'gameplay' elements, I really don't see an issue with allowing for some sort of easy resolve option for the fights. I'd hestitate to put in a 'skip combat completely' option, just because it feels as though it can be an easy way to ensure that fights have little narrative grounding. But a difficulty setting where your party can more or less take care of things by themselves and the risk of death is practically nonexistent? I don't really see any issue.

Of course, at the end of the day, everyone has different tolerances for these sorts of things. I'd be happy with a single-save, Dark Souls system where everything you do has lasting consequences on your character and a misstep can set you back half an hour or more. I realize that I am in the minority, however, and am in favour of providing as many people as possible the tools to enjoy our games. Me, I'd never use it, but why its existence should bother me is something I don't really understand.

I think you are going a little bit of a straw man route for this.  The idea of a "Super-Easy" mode is not new.  Just off the top of my head, Gears of War 2 had a casual mode which was designed for non-gamers to be able to play, and that was almost four years ago.  There was no real backlash about this that I can think of, and Cliff Bleszinski talked about this ad nauseum in all the preview material. 

What Hepler was discussing (and I think, based on her hilariously underdeveloped PR skills, that there is not to assume the worst) was the very same inorganic "skip combat entirely" button that you yourself would hesitate to use.  She isn't exactly equivocal about it:

A fast-forward button. Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. ]Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue.

I have strong opinions on statements like this, and if she weren't one of your co-workers, perhaps yours would be similar (perhaps they are?), but I think it is easy to see why some people would get polemical about Jennifer.

Modifié par TooManyFreakingAccts, 22 février 2012 - 06:03 .

[Darth Krytie]

Mitsukashira wrote...
Some people aren't intelligent enough to get at the real issue, and lash out at Jennifer Hepler in cruel ways, but that doesn't change the fact that she isn't good for gaming, and she isn't good for the evolution of the RPG.

To me, it seems, you don't understand the breadth of her job. She writes quests, characters. She doesn't write gameplay. She works on a team, not alone. She doesn't function in a vacuum. So, lashing out at her at all is stupid. She's fine for gaming. She's allowed her own opinion.

What some people aren't intelligent enough to understand is: Just because she voiced her opinion about her gaming preferences doesn't mean her gaming preferences are going to come to fruition. Jennifer saying she doesn't like combat in RPGS won't make combat automagically disappear. So, no worries.

Plenty of people like different things in games. Plenty of people like things other people don't. And vice versa. The existence of this opinions doesn't invalidate the existence of other opinions on gaming.

And if there was a way to automagically skip combat so people could only deal with the dialogue, people can just as easily NOT DO THAT. Does it matter if a gaming function merely exists if you don't choose to utilize it?

[HiroVoid]

Actually, the latter part does because that would mean nothing in gameplay has absolutely no effect on the story. It would also seem like you'd rather skip parts of the story through the gameplay, or that there's no story at all. The biggest example would be in ME2 with Kal'Reegar.

It's the same reason ME2 has a "story" mode(though it's just the game at "very easy" without telling you).  You can't get rid of the gameplay without sacrificing story.....though this may not have been the case in DA2(since I only played about 9-10 hours in it).

Modifié par HiroVoid, 22 février 2012 - 06:38 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

What Hepler was discussing (and I think, based on her hilariously underdeveloped PR skills, that there is not to assume the worst) was the very same inorganic "skip combat entirely" button that you yourself would hesitate to use.  She isn't exactly equivocal about it:

A fast-forward button. Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. ]Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue.

I have strong opinions on statements like this, and if she weren't one of your co-workers, perhaps yours would be similar (perhaps they are?), but I think it is easy to see why some people would get polemical about Jennifer.

So...why would you be against having a hypothetical 'skip combat' button if it was purely optional to use?

What's so terrible about a feature you, personally, wouldn't be forced to use?

[Jahannam]

Filament wrote...

I still don't understand why people care what her opinion is about how games should be. She's not a solo indie developer who controls all aspects of the game, she's a writer. She does the writing part for games. That her focus is more on the dialog aspect than other aspects of the game isn't just perfectly understandable, but it seems to me that game companies should damn well expect that kind of attitude from their writers.

Seems like people expect her to be a gamer. Shes not. Shes part of a team.

If Im a buisness owner I dont hire a driver based on their skills as a billing specialist. Also their personal opinion on how billing should be means jack. As long as they do the job I hired them to do they are a team player.

I will bet theres alot of people in different depts of bioware that dont care for games..dont like the way they are. None of that matters as long as they do THEIR job.

Attacking Jennifer makes about as much sense as attacking some guy in billing, or the guy that drives the truck...or the janitor for their views on the way a game should be for that matter.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Filament wrote...

I still don't understand why people care what her opinion is about how games should be. She's not a solo indie developer who controls all aspects of the game, she's a writer. She does the writing part for games. That her focus is more on the dialog aspect than other aspects of the game isn't just perfectly understandable, but it seems to me that game companies should damn well expect that kind of attitude from their writers.

If you think it's only the writers of this company who have their throats jumped down for expressing honest, civil and personal opinions, I think you should dig back a bit further.

[Tryynity]

How many people that are against combat here have played an MMO where there is a way to bypass i.e. sneak or take longer route. e.g LotRO have fields of enemies and often I have carefully picked my way through to avoid combat, simply because I have a goal and I want to get there.

For storyline oriented people stopping to fight random stuff is like answering the phone continually while you are trying to get your work done.

When playing a storybased RPG as opposed to an action/fighting game - sometimes having the choice to avoid would not be bad.

I personally love random spaced out combat - one of the brownie points I give to SKYRIM, as often while travelling from A to B you have to deal with an attack - battles are over fast and you go on your merry way. It is also done in away that helps continue game immersion, it is the type of attack you would expect while roaming around adventuring.

I loved how DAO inserted the ambushes that occured enroute to a destination.

I understand people's desire to sometimes skip over something if it is interupting their sense of immersion into the story. I play RPGs for the story and feeling a part of it, not the combat. People obviously have different approaches and thats why I cant see a problem with choice.

[Aldaris951]

Who killed off duncan, Was it Jen or david gaider? Im guessing Gaider because he also killed off wynne in his new book! He must hate mentor type characters.

[Fugiz]

Aldaris951 wrote...

Who killed off duncan, Was it Jen or david gaider? Im guessing Gaider because he also killed off wynne in his new book! He must hate mentor type characters.

I thought she was already dead? I remember killing her in Origins...

[Fox In The Box]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

Fox In The Box wrote...

Wasn't it just to skip combat sequences for those who wanted to? There is more to gameplay than just combat, you know. While I like fighting, endless streams of enemies tend to become more tedious than fun for me. There were several points in DA2 - one where I had encountered no less than five night-time gangs in a row, each of them spawning three waves of enemies - where I really envied PC-users their "killallhostiles" console command.

This is more a function of the appallingly bad combat in DA2.

The idea that you would remove combat from a videogame instead of making it good is just so truly idiotic that I cannot find words to argue about this.

"Idiotic" is the word I'll use to describe this sort of pearl-clutching hysteria over a comment she made five or six years ago, regarding a game-play addition that would have no effect on however you decided to play your game whatsoever. And I for one, did not find the combat in DA2 "appallingly bad." It was just too much of it - other people might not agree with me. Other people crank the difficulty up to Nightmare and would find my way of playing games incredibly dull. That's because it's a difficult task to find a balance that's going to please everyone, no matter how fun you think you make the combat.

The fact that there is a "Skip the Fade" mod and "Skip the Deeproads" and "killallhostiles" console command means that there is a market for people who would skip some parts of the gameplay to get to the parts they want which, again, does not affect the way you play your game because those parts of the game are still there and skipping them is optional.

Both of these latter two things mean that a long tenure at BioWare is very likely for Hepler, which is a minor tragedy in and of itself.

The best possible outcome for everyone (Hepler, gamers, BioWare) would be for her to leave BioWare voluntarily with a very nice severance package and go on to do something she really loves, as it is patently clear that whatever that is, it isn't videogames.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, boyo. Lots of people - myself included - have enjoyed the work she's done.

Modifié par Fox In The Box, 23 février 2012 - 09:45 .