288 réponses à ce sujet

[Aldaris951]

Fugiz wrote...

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

Doesnt effect you then because she dies in the book, I kept her alive for her only to die in a damn book. I knew she was going to die at somepoint because of what she said at the end of origins but to kill her off in a book? lame. She deserved an on-screen death.

[Aldaris951]

Wow, I went on youtube and people are even bashing her on the comment box there:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li4indfogkU&feature=related 

Modifié par Aldaris951, 22 février 2012 - 09:46 .

[Aldaris951]

David Gaider:



I didnt make these youtube videos but its sad to see that people are trolling Jen and gaider.

Modifié par Aldaris951, 22 février 2012 - 09:58 .

[AlexXIV]

OP is bad and should feel bad.

Discuss your views of story and gameplay without beating dead horses and refering to people who got more then enough trouble for a 6 year old innocent remark they made if you're a half decent person. I know you're not, OP, because you made this thread. But. At least. Try. For once.

[DreGregoire]

Maybe I was reading into her comments too much and putting my own spin on what she meant, but it was my impression that she was more refering to replaying of the game than anything else; you know replaying so that she can see the different outcomes based on her choices. Currently you win combat no matter what or you die and have to replay the combat, this can be problematic if your attention is divided. With a busy lifestyle that includes work and children I can see the benefit of being able to skip the portions of a game that you are less interested in so that your limited time can be spent the most effectively. Even not having a busy lifestyle I can see the benefit of choice. I notice that many don't demean the ability to skip cutscenes and chatter. To appear to say that one person's choice in how they wish to play a game is wrong or not as important as your own seems like a person is saying that the gaming industry should revolve around them alone. I know this is not the impression many people intend to give but it is what it looks like to me. I support pushing for systems that give a more diverse audience what they are looking for in a game.

[Mr Fixit]

I wouldn't personally use the "skip button", because I enjoy combat in the games (though DA2 was way too combat heavy), but I feel compelled to make two points that seem lost on those professional internet warriors that call themselves the "fans":

1. Any such skip feature would be purely optional. If you don't want it, DON'T USE IT!

2. As far as I know, expressing opinions is still permitted. Jennifer gave her opinion (6 years ago!), and that's all there is to it.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 22 février 2012 - 10:22 .

[esper]

DreGregoire wrote...

Maybe I was reading into her comments too much and putting my own spin on what she meant, but it was my impression that she was more refering to replaying of the game than anything else; you know replaying so that she can see the different outcomes based on her choices. Currently you win combat no matter what or you die and have to replay the combat, this can be problematic if your attention is divided. With a busy lifestyle that includes work and children I can see the benefit of being able to skip the portions of a game that you are less interested in so that your limited time can be spent the most effectively. Even not having a busy lifestyle I can see the benefit of choice. I notice that many don't demean the ability to skip cutscenes and chatter. To appear to say that one person's choice in how they wish to play a game is wrong or not as important as your own seems like a person is saying that the gaming industry should revolve around them alone. I know this is not the impression many people intend to give but it is what it looks like to me. I support pushing for systems that give a more diverse audience what they are looking for in a game.

No, that is exactly what they are saying.

I for my part would like and skip combat mode in da:o, I am finished with the game and thus don't want to play through the hordes of combat again, but there are still some small choices or dialog I would like to make, but to play through the whole thing again, just for that. Just no, I proberly won't do it before I have the da-series as a whole before me.

[LordPaul256]

One unique aspect of video games that cannot be found in other mediums is a sense of accomplishment. I think Todd Howard did a good job explaining this during his keynote address at DICE this year.

You want further proof of this? Look at a Achievements in video games. People like to show that they overcame the game, and earned something. Yet, for some reason, movies don't have achievements.

If people only care about story and not gameplay, then they should really look elsewhere. It's like someone loving books but wishing they could get pas the boring reading part. Speaking of, there are millions of great books out there that have better stories than 90% of video games. I would go recommend reading one of those.

For those of you that claim that you prefer video game stories because you live as or with the characters in their world, well that part comes from the gameplay. See? You actually do like the gameplay part.

And, finally, most games come with an easy setting. If this is just about renaming the easy setting to "Story Mode," well that's some crazy marketing you got going on. Rephrase the argument to that. It'll make less people angry.

[Wittand25]

LordPaul256 wrote...

One unique aspect of video games that cannot be found in other mediums is a sense of accomplishment. I think Todd Howard did a good job explaining this during his keynote address at DICE this year.

You want further proof of this? Look at a Achievements in video games. People like to show that they overcame the game, and earned something. Yet, for some reason, movies don't have achievements.

If people only care about story and not gameplay, then they should really look elsewhere. It's like someone loving books but wishing they could get pas the boring reading part. Speaking of, there are millions of great books out there that have better stories than 90% of video games. I would go recommend reading one of those.

For those of you that claim that you prefer video game stories because you live as or with the characters in their world, well that part comes from the gameplay. See? You actually do like the gameplay part.

And, finally, most games come with an easy setting. If this is just about renaming the easy setting to "Story Mode," well that's some crazy marketing you got going on. Rephrase the argument to that. It'll make less people angry.

An option to skip fights does not automatically means that the player would use it in every fight.
As example strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic have had the option to skip fights for years now, so that the player does not need to sit through boring 20 Archangels against 1000 Imps fights later. And I often used "Killallhostiles" in past BioWare games whenever I was in a situation when I had to face countless trashmobs only to progress to the next storypoint.
Easy setting does not help in such cases since the only thing it accomplishes is making the already boring fights against trash even challenging in therefore more boring.

Modifié par Wittand25, 22 février 2012 - 01:00 .

[Pzykozis]

My problem with this topic is that for some reason the idea of branching dialogue and the outcomes from that isn't considered part of the "game" aspect in and of itself...

Removing combat and focusing purely on a political strategy with branching dialogue etc would still be a video game, perhaps DA doesn't focus on it as much as imaginary game does but dialogue is still part of gameplay.

There's no difference on either side, I want to skip the dialogue part of the game to get to the action (action=/=gameplay), I want to skip the action part of the game to get to the dialogue. They're just selectively picking what the player likes the most about the game we already have one why not the other? (well I know why really it's rhetorical).

[Fast Jimmy]

Equating skipping dialogue with skipping combat, though, is not equivalent. Dialogue is going to be the same, no matter what. If you make the same conversation choices or walk into the same cinematic scene, its going to be the exact same. Same words, same tone, same everything.

Combat isn't going to be the exact same thing. Sure, you may employ the same overall tactics, you may have the same problems or challenges to overcome in a fight, but its not guaranteed to have the same, exact situation. I skip dialogue when I've seen the same conversation nine times or the same scene play out exactly how I already know it will.

I think avoiding combat should be done by non-combat skills. Unlike how they were approached in DAO, I think non-combat skills should make it so that almost 90% of all situations can be side-stepped, avoided or diverted without resorting to actually fighting. That would be a much more worthwhile experience for those who enjoy story or dialogue, to make it a game of choosing the right speech options (that AREN'T labeled as such) to avoid combat or to have someone else fight your battles for you.

And, though I don't wish to attack Mrs. Hepler in the least, I think the people making the claim that she has no influence on Bioware's decisions as a writer, when in fact ME3 is now going to be touting this exact feature, is a little telling.

I guarantee this will result in, within the first week of release, someone posting a speed run of ME3 on YouTube where they skip all dialogue, cut scenes and combat and get done with the game in less than two hours. Is that what Bioware really is content with offering? The option to skip their entire game? As long as a player pays?

[Bleachrude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Equating skipping dialogue with skipping combat, though, is not equivalent. Dialogue is going to be the same, no matter what. If you make the same conversation choices or walk into the same cinematic scene, its going to be the exact same. Same words, same tone, same everything.

Combat isn't going to be the exact same thing. Sure, you may employ the same overall tactics, you may have the same problems or challenges to overcome in a fight, but its not guaranteed to have the same, exact situation. I skip dialogue when I've seen the same conversation nine times or the same scene play out exactly how I already know it will.

????

Um, no.

Skipping combat makes way more sense than skipping dialogue in a RPG, especially since the defining aspect of Western RPGs is that there are branching dialogue options.

Combat doesn't change at all unless you change difficulty since it is not against an actual real live person so I REALLY, really don't see your point.

Why do you think there's mods like "skiptheFade" and "skipthedeeproads"

(BTW, this interview was from 6 years ago...Wouldn't this be when the person in question be furiously writing fro DA:Origins?)

[Aldandil]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I guarantee this will result in, within the first week of release, someone posting a speed run of ME3 on YouTube where they skip all dialogue, cut scenes and combat and get done with the game in less than two hours. Is that what Bioware really is content with offering? The option to skip their entire game? As long as a player pays?

Why would that be a problem? Honestly? Why would you have a problem with me skipping the entire game if I so wished?

I think a comparison could be made with lock-picking. In Skyrim, lock-picking is a minigame part and in DA:O it isn't. We're still allowed to open locks in DA:O, but we don't have to sit through it or do it manually. Since I didn't enjoy the minigame in Skyrim, I would have been happy to skip it, and spend my time playing the parts of the game I did enjoy. There appears to be a conception that combat is what makes a game a game, and it isn't. It's a minigame just like lock-picking. Everything is technically a lot of different minigames creating a whole. If I wanted to wait for a game that had the exact mix of minigames that I enjoy, I would have to wait a long time. Having the possibility to skip doing things I don't like doesn't cost anyone anything except me, who pays for content I don't get to experience. That's my choice, though.

Implementing non-combat solutions more often is also a good idea, but that might be a lot of work and it might also restrict your role-playing options a bit. Even if you as a player don't like combat you could still want to play a warrior kind of guy or have your character lose its temper every once in a while. Might be easier to implement a skip combat feature.

Just a short note on the debate in general:
I'm don't know whether to laugh or cry about this whole debate. I can't understand why this is different from a discussion on whether you prefer a voiced protagonist or not. I should add that I think the person I quoted was being very good at expressing his personal opinion in a very polite manner, it's the over-the-top debate elsewhere that I can't fathom. I just like to post somewhere that I think that whole mess stinks.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Seriously..some poeple are so incredibly dense...

Options never hurt anyone. Story adn dialoguse is part of GAMEPLAY just as swinging a sword is.

[Klidi]

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. 

Wrong. What she wanted was the possibility to skip combat.  Combat is just one part of gameplay. Tetris has also zero combat. Yet it has great gameplay.

For me, the most important part of the gameplay of DAO was the story and interaction with characters. And apparently I'm not the only one - otherwise the mod Skip Fight would not exist. Fights are part of the gameplay during the first, second, perhaps even the third playtrough, through different difficulty levels. But for many fans that are replaying it for a tenth time, it's the story that matters, not the fighting. Fighting is always the same, decisions that the player makes that move the story are different.

So why is it ok to give the players that care about fighs the possibility to skip the dialogue, but it's absolutely wrong to allow people who care more about the story to skip combat?

The argument 'those who don't want the combat and want to skip it shouldn't play games that include it' is not valid. The same could be said about dialogue and cutscenes: 'those who don't want dialogue and cutscenes and want to skip it shouldn't play games that include it'.

Modifié par Klidi, 22 février 2012 - 02:08 .

[esper]

Wittand25 wrote...

LordPaul256 wrote...

One unique aspect of video games that cannot be found in other mediums is a sense of accomplishment. I think Todd Howard did a good job explaining this during his keynote address at DICE this year.

You want further proof of this? Look at a Achievements in video games. People like to show that they overcame the game, and earned something. Yet, for some reason, movies don't have achievements.

If people only care about story and not gameplay, then they should really look elsewhere. It's like someone loving books but wishing they could get pas the boring reading part. Speaking of, there are millions of great books out there that have better stories than 90% of video games. I would go recommend reading one of those.

For those of you that claim that you prefer video game stories because you live as or with the characters in their world, well that part comes from the gameplay. See? You actually do like the gameplay part.

And, finally, most games come with an easy setting. If this is just about renaming the easy setting to "Story Mode," well that's some crazy marketing you got going on. Rephrase the argument to that. It'll make less people angry.

An option to skip fights does not automatically means that the player would use it in every fight.
As example strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic have had the option to skip fights for years now, so that the player does not need to sit through boring 20 Archangels against 1000 Imps fights later. And I often used "Killallhostiles" in past BioWare games whenever I was in a situation when I had to face countless trashmobs only to progress to the next storypoint.
Easy setting does not help in such cases since the only thing it accomplishes is making the already boring fights against trash even challenging in therefore more boring.

Indeed what I would like is if there was a kill all hostile bottom for all three in perhaps a new game plus, so the fights which is really just the enxt 20 darkspawn and the next 20 shades just can be skipped.
I like combat untill I have mastered it then it is not funny any more (at least not Biowares), and I get to the tired of combat way before I am tired of the story.

[Fast Jimmy]

Bleachrude wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Equating skipping dialogue with skipping combat, though, is not equivalent. Dialogue is going to be the same, no matter what. If you make the same conversation choices or walk into the same cinematic scene, its going to be the exact same. Same words, same tone, same everything.

Combat isn't going to be the exact same thing. Sure, you may employ the same overall tactics, you may have the same problems or challenges to overcome in a fight, but its not guaranteed to have the same, exact situation. I skip dialogue when I've seen the same conversation nine times or the same scene play out exactly how I already know it will.

????

Um, no.

Skipping combat makes way more sense than skipping dialogue in a RPG, especially since the defining aspect of Western RPGs is that there are branching dialogue options.

Combat doesn't change at all unless you change difficulty since it is not against an actual real live person so I REALLY, really don't see your point.

Why do you think there's mods like "skiptheFade" and "skipthedeeproads"

(BTW, this interview was from 6 years ago...Wouldn't this be when the person in question be furiously writing fro DA:Origins?)

There's a reason I didn't address Mrs. Hepler's comments directly, and more of the concept of the skip combat feature, now going to be seen in ME3. I understand the interview was from six years ago and means little to present-day, except for the fact that the feature she mentioned is now being implemented in a Bioware game.

Dialogue does NOT change (notice I said if you chose the same options) ever. Period. Unless you are playing through again making different story choices, have a different background (like the origins in DAO) or chose different dialogue options, its going to play out the same every time. If I die in a fight, then reload my game and go into the same pre-fight cutscene, it will be the same. If I choose the same dialogue options, it will be the same.

Combat is not. If I go into a fight activating the same ability, attack the same enemy of a group first and have the same buffs activated, the fight will not go the same every time. Critical hits, companion and enemy AI, timing of attacks and moves - all of this can change any given fight and give a different outcome. While combat is not necessarily fun in and of itself, it can be variant each and every time.

In keeping this in line with the game in discussion, DAO had slower, clunky but ultimately more tactical combat - you had to choose the right enemies to attack first, you had to employ the right tactics to take down certain enemies and to handle certain situations. DAO also had more dialogue and exposition - NPCs and companions alike went into detail telling you the... well, details... of their lives and their world. Contrast both of these with DA2. DA2's combat was flashier and faster in the animation, but it was just a matter of slagging it out, killing enemies with 10 to 20X more health than you. Switching to Casual reduced this down to just 5 to 10X more health. DA2 also had less NPCs with which to intereact. Aside from the Companions dialgoue (which I felt was restricted, given you could only talk once or twice an Act) the rest of the NPCs were fairly limited and fairly flat.

Point being... it seems in DA2 that the decision was made to make combat last longer by giving large health bars, and to trim down dialogue so people wouldn't be reading/listening to "walls of text." I think DA2 would have benefited from a "skip combat' button, but I think it would have benefited a lot more from better combat in general, and better dialogue. The "skip gameplay" button is a cheap, easy fix, but it introduces the dangerous argument of "you don't like the way we did combat? Skip it." Instead of saying "You didn't like the combat? What can we do to make it more enjoyable for you?"

[Wrathra]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

Wait, if you skip Combat then all you have is a Japanese visual novel.

Not true at all.

If you look back at the original LucasArts or Sierra games (Monkey Island, Quest for Glory, etc.) you'll see that combat and gameplay aren't the same thing and that combat wasn't even necessary to have a good game. 

I agree with Jennifer.  I have a full time job and a family. I don't always have time to spend hours trying to get through a fight before I can continue the story. (I'm looking at you, DA2). An option to get around it isn't a bad thing.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wrathra wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

Wait, if you skip Combat then all you have is a Japanese visual novel.

Not true at all.

If you look back at the original LucasArts or Sierra games (Monkey Island, Quest for Glory, etc.) you'll see that combat and gameplay aren't the same thing and that combat wasn't even necessary to have a good game. 

I agree with Jennifer.  I have a full time job and a family. I don't always have time to spend hours trying to get through a fight before I can continue the story. (I'm looking at you, DA2). An option to get around it isn't a bad thing.

That's a fair enough argument, however the combat sections of Lucas Arts and Sierra games were insanely small parts of the game. You didn't have an option to skip the puzzles or the item interaction portion of those games, the meat-and-potatoes of the point and click adventure game genre.

Combat is not crucial to a game. But in Bioware games, combat is a part of the gameplay, a crucial one. To skip it means you are left with little more than an interactive story.

I would prefer they put more effort into making combat not necessary, personally. I'm not a proponent of it. But I don't like the "skip the portions of the game I don't like" option being used as opposed to "let's improve and expand the gameplay to make it so one type of play (combat only) isn't the only option."

[philippe willaume]

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.

Indeed
in fact, for the second part provided that the game dialogues option are like in the leaked demo a few months ago and not like the official demo. I think you pulled it off nicely with ME3.
Instead of skipping the combat, you could have a super easy setting where the char is treated a companion and the enemies are significantly weaker than in casual and were finishing move occurs more often, so that there is eye candy.  Leaving the camera movement and each member of the group selectable so that you can see what he does or the action from his stand point. as well I thing you should leave the pause option to be able to use potion, select the weapon and stuff, just in case.

but you see, I believe that you did a bit of the organic way in DA:0. There was time where you could draw the baddies out or let it slug it between themselves (DA:A). Granted it was set pieces an possibly unintended consequences, and definitely at an embryonic state. As well In MotA the stealth was a step in the right direction. it does not need to be that integrated that you can crawl in every ditch or physically find the watch to get help with the robbers in the city.
A dialogue option "let get the watch" or "lest skip that one" is good enough, just as the stealth in MotA was provided that failures leads to fight and not a reset.

Phil

[philippe willaume]

Wrathra wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

Wait, if you skip Combat then all you have is a Japanese visual novel.

Not true at all.

If you look back at the original LucasArts or Sierra games (Monkey Island, Quest for Glory, etc.) you'll see that combat and gameplay aren't the same thing and that combat wasn't even necessary to have a good game. 

I agree with Jennifer.  I have a full time job and a family. I don't always have time to spend hours trying to get through a fight before I can continue the story. (I'm looking at you, DA2). An option to get around it isn't a bad thing.

I am a bit of two minds on the topic.
I agree with Esper comments about skipping/making combat faster for play through for the next installement sake.
On the other had saying that the combat is problematic is an a combat/action game, regardless how good the story is, is saying that you want to train medieval fencing but don't really want to be hit.
In which case I would told you, sorry this is not the club for you go and do taebo.

That being said if I want to be totally honest, and sort of contradicting myself, I played all the boss fight in DA:2 in casual because it was just so tedious that I lost the will to live and that was at first play through. So de facto is fast forwarding the fight.
(I mean in casaul the fight are over in a flash)
phil

[LordPaul256]

Wittand25 wrote...

LordPaul256 wrote...

One unique aspect of video games that cannot be found in other mediums is a sense of accomplishment. I think Todd Howard did a good job explaining this during his keynote address at DICE this year.

You want further proof of this? Look at a Achievements in video games. People like to show that they overcame the game, and earned something. Yet, for some reason, movies don't have achievements.

If people only care about story and not gameplay, then they should really look elsewhere. It's like someone loving books but wishing they could get pas the boring reading part. Speaking of, there are millions of great books out there that have better stories than 90% of video games. I would go recommend reading one of those.

For those of you that claim that you prefer video game stories because you live as or with the characters in their world, well that part comes from the gameplay. See? You actually do like the gameplay part.

And, finally, most games come with an easy setting. If this is just about renaming the easy setting to "Story Mode," well that's some crazy marketing you got going on. Rephrase the argument to that. It'll make less people angry.

An option to skip fights does not automatically means that the player would use it in every fight.
As example strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic have had the option to skip fights for years now, so that the player does not need to sit through boring 20 Archangels against 1000 Imps fights later. And I often used "Killallhostiles" in past BioWare games whenever I was in a situation when I had to face countless trashmobs only to progress to the next storypoint.
Easy setting does not help in such cases since the only thing it accomplishes is making the already boring fights against trash even challenging in therefore more boring.

You mean auto-resolve?  Yeah, the Total War games have that as well, but you pay the price for it.  And even then you still had to earn the troops and above average odds to use it with any success.  It was earned.

I also don't see how what they recommend is different than an easy setting.  It certainly seems to be what they implemented in Mass Effect 3 with the Story Mode.

Here's the rub...

Either someone is so bad at the game that they don't enjoy it, in which case an easy mode benefits them.

-or-

The combat is so bad, boring, and repetitive that even people who normally enjoy gameplay are not enjoying it.  In that case, it's not a question of whether or not there should be gameplay in a video game, but whether or not the gameplay has been well designed.  I would assume not.

In video games, the gameplay is essential to the story.  If it is not, then it is a story that can be told (most likely better) in another medium like film, books, comic books, or even a YouTube style choose-your-own-adventure.  You have to embrace your medium, otherwise you come across someone that wished to work in another medium but for whatever reason has been unable to do so.  That may or may not be true, but that will be the perception.  Once that perception comes across, it will anger the people who truly do enjoy that medium.  In this example, that would be video games.

Again, if the gameplay is so inconsequential to the story, in such a way that it can be skipped without sacrificing the story, then that is an error in gameplay design.  It is sacrificing the game part of video games.

You can claim that the two are seperate, but many fo the best, most renowned video games ever have managed to have their story interwoven into the gameplay. 

Half-Life
Grim Fandango
Planescape: Torment
Ico
Psychonauts
et cetera...

Those are all games that would not be the same experience if you could skip through the gameplay.  They do things that only video games can do, and many people view them as pinnacles of the art.

Now, if video games are not art to you, in fact, if you don't even like the gameplay aspect of it, then you are someone who is vying to video games to emulate other mediums that for whatever reason you subconsciously prefer.  Gameplay is video games.  It is one of it's pillars.  It is what seperates it from other genres.  Removing that is trying to change it to be more like another medium. 

[esper]

philippe willaume wrote...

Wrathra wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

Wait, if you skip Combat then all you have is a Japanese visual novel.

Not true at all.

If you look back at the original LucasArts or Sierra games (Monkey Island, Quest for Glory, etc.) you'll see that combat and gameplay aren't the same thing and that combat wasn't even necessary to have a good game. 

I agree with Jennifer.  I have a full time job and a family. I don't always have time to spend hours trying to get through a fight before I can continue the story. (I'm looking at you, DA2). An option to get around it isn't a bad thing.

I am a bit of two minds on the topic.
I agree with Esper comments about skipping/making combat faster for play through for the next installement sake.
On the other had saying that the combat is problematic is an a combat/action game, regardless how good the story is, is saying that you want to train medieval fencing but don't really want to be hit.
In which case I would told you, sorry this is not the club for you go and do taebo.

That being said if I want to be totally honest, and sort of contradicting myself, I played all the boss fight in DA:2 in casual because it was just so tedious that I lost the will to live and that was at first play through. So de facto is fast forwarding the fight.
(I mean in casaul the fight are over in a flash)
phil

It is indeed a difficult matter, and I don't know what the ulitimate solution to the problem is. For now I am holding out for ME3's story mode so I can see how well that works. (That is if I do two playthroughs of ME3)

But principally I don't see the difference between skipping combat and skipping dialog in an rpg, because in an rpg the branching dialog choices is as important (for me more) than the combat who as someone says does feel a bit like a mini game, you just have to do (at least in dragon age, both games). And I don't see why on a prinicpal level the one thing is worse than the other.

And I know that I tire of the combat before I tire of the dialog and story. Mostly because the combat is the same in every fight that hasn't got a boss.

[LordPaul256]

Pzykozis wrote...

My problem with this topic is that for some reason the idea of branching dialogue and the outcomes from that isn't considered part of the "game" aspect in and of itself...

Removing combat and focusing purely on a political strategy with branching dialogue etc would still be a video game, perhaps DA doesn't focus on it as much as imaginary game does but dialogue is still part of gameplay.

Yes, that would be a great video game.  And very similar to one of my favorite games right now, Crusader Kings II.  If they could someone make that a F/TPS with ability trees in the politcal arena, I'm sure I would love the hell out of it.  There wouldn't even need to be combat, because the actualy gameplay element itself would be built into the developing story, be it either in the open-ended political structure of CKII or in a more branching based store mode similar to what was found in games like DA2 (minus the warfare aspects, of course).

However, how it's currently implemented is hardly avant garde gameplay.  It usually a series of choices, lots of repeated text, than maybe some extra options depending on how the character is built.  In the current BioWare method, characters have a tendency to be built one of two ways: Bad-Ass or Protector.  Most recently they even removed the persuasion skill modifier. 

If that is truly to be touted as a key gameplay feature, then it needs to be improved and expanded upon. 

Pzykozis wrote...
There's no difference on either side, I want to skip the dialogue part of the game to get to the action (action=/=gameplay), I want to skip the action part of the game to get to the dialogue. They're just selectively picking what the player likes the most about the game we already have one why not the other? (well I know why really it's rhetorical).

See, this is where you lost me.  How is "action=/=gameplay" ?  It's such a blanket statement that you don't expand upon.  I would argue that action is the gameplay, even it it less than perfectly implemented, such as in DA2.

Imagine DA2 without combat.  Here is the game:

You get chased from Lothering.
*conversation choice of being protector, smug, or bad-ass*
You land in Kirkwall.
*conversation choice of being protector, smug, or bad-ass*
You meet your uncle
*story choice of thieves or mecenaries*
You get an opportunity to go on an expedition
*conversation choice of being protector, smug, or bad-ass*

I'll cut that short.

There are very few real choices in DA2.  Something many people have complained about.  Basically, if you remove the action (which I would call the poorly implemented gameplay) than you're down to a handful of choices once you ignore the Protector/Smug/Bad-Ass conversation options which barely affect the story.  You don't even make your first real one until you get to the Deep Roads.  Even then it's mostly an accidental choice.

Then...?  I can't even rember the next choice.  Some of the side missions?  Well, if we're removing action from the game, then why would those even exist?  I guess if we included them in the game, but made them skippable, then they're optional free extra stuff.  Who wouldn't want free extra stuff if you could just skip through the actual work to earn it?  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Plus, if you removed the action, what are building up with these characters?  Their stats are now meaningless.  Why even have them?  And, if there is action in the game, but you can just skip the action, then assigning stats is still menaingless, except for choosing gear.  But you don't see your gear on anyone but your main character, so that's still pretty meaningless.  It's not like that gear is helping you in the action that you're skipping.

[TooManyFreakingAccts]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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?

The BioWare employee just said, in no uncertain terms, that he would be hesitant to include such a thing, and there is an amazing argument against it in the post directly above it. Hopefully that answers your question.

At any rate, Jennifer's writing is not highly regarded (although obviously fans of hers are overrepresented on these forums), and I strongly believe this is with good reason.  She has a particular bent that makes her incompatible with serious storytelling, in my opinion.  The fact that she has given such a poor account of herself in all other areas makes it easy to fall into the trap of hating her, but really I just wish her well somewhere out of the BioWare offices.

Modifié par TooManyFreakingAccts, 22 février 2012 - 03:35 .