288 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I was of two minds once. But then I got better.

No you didn't.




Anyway, I have in my mind a vision of the perfect RPG video game. This vision is constantly being adjusted and modified as games come out and show features that expand on my perfection concept, but in principle, it has remained relatively the same since the Baldur's Gate/Fallout 1+2 days. Give us a world to explore, give us a purpose to explore it that defines who the character is and what they do, have ways to interact and speak to other characters in this world and give options, options, options on how to do anything.

DAO gave me the closest glimpse of this ideal game I'd seen in a while. Lots of the older emulations on PnP games, with choices, skills for various reasons, a deep story and interesting lore and world, but with newer tehcnology in animations, speech, graphics and cinematics. To see DA2 not improve and become more of the idealized version would have been disappointing, but to see it diverge and regress further away from that ideal was heartwrenching.

Point being - it doesn't seem like Bioware is moving to the model I love and dream of when playing games, but rather is moving to a model to be able to be played by everyone, but has no distinguishing characteristics at all. They don't want to be a shooter or action RPG, so the combat is mediocre. They don't want to tell a branching story, but want to tell you the story they want you to experience, so things feel railroaded. They don't want inventory to feel like juggling the same sets of armor and weapons, so everything becomes watered down and nameless and the look of everyone but the PC doesn't change.

It just seems like the "skip combat" button is just another step in the Easy Fix department, rather than working to make the experience as diverse as possible, or saying "You don't like our game? Maybe you shouldn't be playing it."

[Mr Fixit]

LordPaul256 wrote...

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?

Congrats! You see how awkward DA2 gameplay is?

[Pzykozis]

LordPaul256 wrote...

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).

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

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.

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.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Well, yes? I'm not saying skipping the combat would be something i'd be interested in at all. The dialogue system needs work regardless of skipping action or not. More branching perhaps incorporating word duels a la Deus Ex or Monkey Island. The ability to sweet talk situations away etc. That would just just make a dialogue only playthrough better rather than suddenly change a dialogue only playthrough from X to a game.

I'm not really sure how I can expand upon the idea that Action isn't all that Gameplay is. Badly worded as it is though perhaps Action is Gameplay but all Gameplay is not Action works better?

As for just cutting stuff out and putting new mechanics in to old games, it doesn't work. Some of the encounter designs and probably bits of the story would have to be written to allow for this sort of gameplay.

Though to be honest in most games the action parts are kinda just filler anyway the only fights that really matter in DA2 for example is the culmination of some of the Major plot arcs, and some of the lesser, the rest are just padding put in there to lengthen the game, alot of those encounters could be skipped with no loss to the quality of the game and this from someone who enjoys both sides in this debate.

[Mitsukashira]

Darth Krytie wrote...

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?

 Perhaps you should read and understand my entire post before taking one part of it out of context. If you have read my entire post, you would understand that my issue is not necessarily with her, but rather the design philosophy she puts forth. It does not matter if she herself can make it happen, but she can certainly influence a game to move in that direction in one way or another. It does not mean that she will, but she sure can; it is entirely possible. Any good company listens to the ideas an input of every employee, and puts all good ideas into motion, should they be positive to the success of the company.
 
In addition, I explained why being able to skip even combat is a very poor choice in a game. If there is a need for combat in the game, it might certainly be there for a reason. Some battles are filler, or just there for the sake of a battle. That is understandable, and traditionally the player has been able to skip them by running away. However, in a game with combat, there are situations where a battle is pivotal to a point in the plot, where victory or loss can affect the outcome of the following story. There is a raw potential for various things to happen during this combat, whether it be dialogue, set pieces, or just chasing an enemy through an area to an important item or place. If designers kept skipping combat in mind, then they will also have to work around the concept of making sure EVERYBODY was able to experience the story in full. This limits the innovation and flow that a developer can bring to the combat sections of gameplay. You begin to segregate the elements of gameplay to make sure it’s impossible for any one person to miss the story-- skipping a gameplay section (combat or otherwise) would not result in a player missing ANY of the story. There’s no melding or fusion; it's fragmented. 

Furthermore, an opinion is not infallible; it is not absolute. Everyone, no matter how big or small, is certainly entitled to their opinion, however that does not make their opinion correct. It is in the opinion of a white supremacist that all other races are inferior. That is their honest, truly believed opinion. It is not fact, it is not an observable reality, but they certainly think that. They are wrong, but they can have that opinion and nobody can take that away from them. However, I can certainly point out why that opinion is wrong, and criticize it as I please. The idea is to be able to sit back, and form an opinion from an objective standpoint. I can like or dislike something, but I can still form an objective opinion. The Dynasty Warriors games are in no way great games (poor production values, repetitive combat, lack of intelligent AI, repetitive objectives, ect), but I love those games. I can see the faults in them, and objectively form an opinion that they aren’t great games. 

 I digress; the point is that Jennifer Hepler’s opinion on gaming is very poor, and gamers are calling her out on that. I don’t agree with them being cruel, and I would never be so myself. I love Bioware games, and I play the living hell out of them. When I learn that certain aspects of the games, which I disliked, were the result of a person with apparently has no passion for gaming, I come to understand what the root of that problem is. If I want a team of people to work on something, anything at all, I expect them to have a damn good understanding of every aspect of that job that is directly related to what they are doing. I want them all to really be passionate about every aspect of the job, and to really understand it so they can make their aspect of the project fit in harmony with the rest. 

 Would you want a group of people to cook for you, where a part, or parts, of the team have no passion or interest in the food they are making? You wouldn’t, because that’s where mistakes and dips in quality can occur. Jennifer Hepler may only write bits of the game, but wouldn’t it benefit her work if she understood the rest of the game, loved the rest of the game, and could come up with innovative ideas to maybe integrate her writing into the gameplay in interesting, and new ways? I’m sure Bioware isn’t a dictatorship, so if she had some good ideas in that regard, I’m sure the rest of the team would consider it, right? 

 It may only be my opinion, but I don’t feel the quality of her writing is enough to allow her to stand only on the strengths of it. A great writer can focus only on writing. A great concept artist and modeler can focus only on that, but they have to be great.

Then again, I guess not everyone can be a Ken Levine, right? 

Modifié par Mitsukashira, 22 février 2012 - 04:33 .

[Huntress]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

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.

 I don't get why all this hating is very stupid not to get the message of " was said 6 years ago", "She is a writer not a game developer" ..

Who  is messuring her writing skills? I hope is not you, because that would be very funny and pathetic all together.
Somewhere out of bioware? dissolutions of grandeur! http://en.wikipedia....diose_delusions

I hope you're ego doesn't get hurt... much.

Modifié par Huntress, 22 février 2012 - 04:42 .

[DJ0000]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


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."

I do like the combat and would agree I'd prefer they add more options rather than a simple skip personally.

Modifié par DJ0000, 22 février 2012 - 05:01 .

[Pzykozis]

Mitsukashira wrote...
It may only be my opinion, but I don’t feel the quality of her writing is enough to allow her to stand only on the strengths of it. A great writer can focus only on writing. A great concept artist and modeler can focus only on that, but they have to be great.

How does that even make sense? In my opinion you can only be a writer if you're a great writer otherwise you have to.. what? do two jobs? I write characters whilst making ui art with my feet? You know this thing is a job right? As an environment artist I don't write the plot aswell you know?

Also games dev isn't a dictatorship but if you think there's no management and people setting the course for the game whilst people have their own views below them then you're on some form of highly powerful drug.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 22 février 2012 - 05:16 .

[Stanley Woo]

LordPaul256 wrote...
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?

Yes, i see that you would choose to play the game as normal. An option to skip the combat/action has no effect on your game. But for someone like me, who rarely finishes games because they require a significant investment of time and effort, it would mean being able to see the end of the story or being able to get to the end boss without "grinding" the rest of the game. It means that someone like me would get to pick and choose which inconsequential, repetitive  fights to skip on my way to the boss or the end of the story. And again, how I play my game has absolutely no effect on your game.

For a more concrete example, i've had Fallout 3 since pretty much the day it came out. According to what I've heard from my friends, even though I've poured a couple dozen hours into the game (across multiple starts and reinstalls), I haven't even begun to see all the content in that game. As i love the setting, wouldn't it be nice if there was an option to skip past some of the random combat encounters so I could see more of the content that the developers made? Even short-ish games like Dante's Inferno and Batman: Arkham Asylum sit on my shelf for months because I either don't feel like playing or have other things to do, including playing on my PC.

For people like me--and people are only suggesting that this might be a neat option to have in some games; they're not demanding that all games force people to have no combat or action (two very different things)--it'd be kinda nice.

[Bleachrude]

LordPaul256 wrote...


Planescape: Torment

Wait.

You're using Planescape:Torment as an example of "good combat mechanics"?

Planescape Torment is one of the greatest videogames of all time IMO.

The combat sucked balls though...No too ways about it, the hacking of the D&D system showed why the game should have been done under an entirely different house system...

PS:T was a great game in spite of the combat...Hell, I suspect part of the reason WHY people love it so much is that you can skip so much of the combat becuas ethe combat was that bad IMO.

[musicallie44]

Stanley Woo wrote...

For people like me--and people are only suggesting that this might be a neat option to have in some games; they're not demanding that all games force people to have no combat or action (two very different things)--it'd be kinda nice.

What I don't understand is why this is an issue at all?  Eventually someone will try to implement this feature in a game.  Players will either love or hate it...and that will determine the future of skipping combat and/or story.  

No matter how you look at this argument...it's not like someone is forcing the player to skip anything. 

Plus, much of this depends on a players mood.  One day - I might crank up to insanity and enjoy killing little animated bad guys.  The next day - I might change the setting to easy and leisurly go through every story option.  

What is the issue people?  This is the very definition of "making a mountian out of a molehill".
Can't we let Jennifer have some peace and quiet? 
And as has already been said - don't like it? - don't buy it!

Simple!

[ckriley]

I am thoroughly confused why threads on this subject keep popping up daily, after the original thread was started about a year ago which referenced an interview a developer had nearly six years ago, where most of the alleged comments have since been revealed as either taken way out of context or were NOT EVEN SAID AT ALL.

Am I missing something here?

[Xewaka]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Yes, i see that you would choose to play the game as normal. An option to skip the combat/action has no effect on your game. But for someone like me, who rarely finishes games because they require a significant investment of time and effort, it would mean being able to see the end of the story or being able to get to the end boss without "grinding" the rest of the game. It means that someone like me would get to pick and choose which inconsequential, repetitive  fights to skip on my way to the boss or the end of the story. And again, how I play my game has absolutely no effect on your game.

For a more concrete example, i've had Fallout 3 since pretty much the day it came out. According to what I've heard from my friends, even though I've poured a couple dozen hours into the game (across multiple starts and reinstalls), I haven't even begun to see all the content in that game. As i love the setting, wouldn't it be nice if there was an option to skip past some of the random combat encounters so I could see more of the content that the developers made? Even short-ish games like Dante's Inferno and Batman: Arkham Asylum sit on my shelf for months because I either don't feel like playing or have other things to do, including playing on my PC.

For people like me--and people are only suggesting that this might be a neat option to have in some games; they're not demanding that all games force people to have no combat or action (two very different things)--it'd be kinda nice.

Important distinction: Are we talking about skipping gameplay in general or combat, specifically? It's not the same thing.
I.E: Fallout 3 already allows to skip a fair amount of combat by virtue of having a good enough Stealth Skill. However, since Stealth gameplay is still gameplay, you are not skipping gameplay. Hence the need of distinction between terms.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 février 2012 - 06:58 .

[hoorayforicecream]

It seems like some people are conflating what was said to saying "Cut gameplay from the game". If you even bother to look at the original article, she mentions specifically the ability to skip things that require significant hand-eye coordination (twitch games), (or) tactics, (or) fighting, (or) inventory management, (or) arcane map reading.

Somehow, people are saying "Then what do you *play*?" The answer is that you can find games that meet these requirements fairly easily. LA Noire, Katamari Damacy, Tetris, Crazy Taxi, Just Dance, etc. are all reasonable examples of games with gameplay that have either excised or made one or more of those criteria optional.

Saying that anyone is advocating 'skipping gameplay' as some sort of monolithic all-encompassing catch-all term in this discussion is a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Saying that anyone is advocating 'skipping gameplay' as some sort of monolithic all-encompassing catch-all term in this discussion is a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

If you remove combat completely and make it so that you can win any fight with the push of the button, then what is the point of half of the mechanics we see in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

Why would it matter what class you play? Why would it matter what level you are, or what skills you choose? WHy would it matter what equipment you have and, by extension, how much money you have? Why would you gather crafting items, if you never had to drink a potion to win a fight?

Couple that with, if it doesn't matter how you respond in conversation, you still get roughly the same outcome in DA2, what would be the point of any of it, at all? Who you get to romance? And seeing all your companions different dialogue options? That's quite a shallow reason to play a game, in my humblest of opinions.

As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of pointless, boring, filler combat. But combat can be done well, in a way that isn't twitch-reflex button mashing, but rather a thoughtful game of chess (cough, cough DAO cough cough). And there are ways to not have combat but have other gameplay elements that are enjoyable to play as well.

I'm a little disheartened to see that developers seem (not just Bioware, but in the industry across the board) want to go to all-action, no-thought combat, but then are fine with implementing a feature that can let you skip that. Why not make the thing people are asking to avoid or that they don't like better? Its seems we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Wittand25]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If you remove combat completely and make it so that you can win any fight with the push of the button, then what is the point of half of the mechanics we see in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

You still have the story and the exploration both have nothing to do with combat.

Why would it matter what class you play? Why would it matter what level you are, or what skills you choose? WHy would it matter what equipment you have and, by extension, how much money you have? Why would you gather crafting items, if you never had to drink a potion to win a fight?

BioWare games are party based, the class of the main character never matters since lacking skills get provided by party members. All recent games scale in level, so leveling is pointless already too. I personally (unless playing on the hardest difficulty on the second playthrough) pick gear by look and not by stats. I usually also cheat with resources and give me 9999999 units of cash right from the start (since I have to worry about money in real life I fail to see why I should do so in a game during my free time as well, unless money management is a key aspect of the game.)

Couple that with, if it doesn't matter how you respond in conversation, you still get roughly the same outcome in DA2, what would be the point of any of it, at all? Who you get to romance? And seeing all your companions different dialogue options? That's quite a shallow reason to play a game, in my humblest of opinions.

Name a single fight that influenced a questline in a game post DA:O, which had a whopping two of them (Redclif night and Ser Cautrien) and even in that case the difference was a minor item as reward and the chance to skip a side quest.

As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of pointless, boring, filler combat. But combat can be done well, in a way that isn't twitch-reflex button mashing, but rather a thoughtful game of chess (cough, cough DAO cough cough). And there are ways to not have combat but have other gameplay elements that are enjoyable to play as well.

cough,cough,Deep roads cough, cough.

I'm a little disheartened to see that developers seem (not just Bioware, but in the industry across the board) want to go to all-action, no-thought combat, but then are fine with implementing a feature that can let you skip that. Why not make the thing people are asking to avoid or that they don't like better? Its seems we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Because some people simply don´t like the feature at all ?
You cannot make combat last for hours and still expect that people who have little interest in it (like myself) don´t lose interest, the same way that it is impossible to write dialog that those who are not interested in the story will not skip during their second playthrough (or maybe even sooner).

Modifié par Wittand25, 22 février 2012 - 08:25 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Saying that anyone is advocating 'skipping gameplay' as some sort of monolithic all-encompassing catch-all term in this discussion is a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

If you remove combat completely and make it so that you can win any fight with the push of the button, then what is the point of half of the mechanics we see in games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

Why don't you try Mass Effect 3 on story mode and find out?

Why would it matter what class you play? Why would it matter what level you are, or what skills you choose? WHy would it matter what equipment you have and, by extension, how much money you have? Why would you gather crafting items, if you never had to drink a potion to win a fight?

If it was optional, then people who enjoyed it would still be able to do all that. People who weren't interested wouldn't have to. In my first two playthroughs of both DAO and DA2, I didn't touch the crafting at all. Does that mean it had no point? Just because it isn't part of the critical path doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed by the players who are interested in that sort of thing. What's wrong with building the game such that you don't need to worry about that sort of thing?

Couple that with, if it doesn't matter how you respond in conversation, you still get roughly the same outcome in DA2, what would be the point of any of it, at all? Who you get to romance? And seeing all your companions different dialogue options? That's quite a shallow reason to play a game, in my humblest of opinions.

I played through DA2 repeatedly, and the parts I remember most vividly aren't the levels I reached, or the combats, or the builds I did, or the items I crafted. The things I remember most are the choices I made, the characters I spent my time with, and their reactions to the choices I made.

See, you're trying to reduce this to "DA2 would suck without combat", and that's silly. DA2 probably would be a more shallow game without the combat if they just ripped it out, sure. If they built the game around it such that it wasn't such a critical required element of the gameplay? That wouldn't be a bad thing at all (once again, I suggest seeing how Mass Effect 3 plays). But trying to imply that "skipping combat would be bad for one game" leads to "skipping combat will be bad for all games" is just silly.

I'm a little disheartened to see that developers seem (not just Bioware, but in the industry across the board) want to go to all-action, no-thought combat, but then are fine with implementing a feature that can let you skip that. Why not make the thing people are asking to avoid or that they don't like better? Its seems we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But that's what they aren't doing. Bioware's biggest project to date (TOR) is the biggest MMOG to launch since WoW, and the major driving emphasis of the game, the reason that people are running to it instead of its competitors, is that the dev team focused on adding strong story and character elements to the MMOG genre. It isn't about the all-action, no-thought combat at all. And it isn't even a question of making the combat more appealing. There are plenty of types of games I don't usually buy (sports and racing titles, for example), but that doesn't mean that I want them to try to get me interested.

I don't agree that Bioware and the industry across the board seem to want to go all-action, no-thought combat. I don't agree that building the option to skip parts of gameplay you dislike into a game from the ground up is a bad idea. Nobody is saying that all games must all do this. But some studios might make some games like this. These might not be games you want, but there are people out there who aren't you, and those people might appreciate features like this.

[Stanley Woo]

musicallie44 wrote...
What I don't understand is why this is an issue at all?  Eventually someone will try to implement this feature in a game.  Players will either love or hate it...and that will determine the future of skipping combat and/or story.  

A similar system will be presented in Mass effect 3.

[Fast Jimmy]

You know what you see a lot in the world? Not just the gaming industry, but the world over.

Someone, or some group, company or organization, has a controversial idea. It is beomoaned and criticized, but the person/group/entity/etc. continues on and implements that idea. If its done horribly, its egg on their face and the world moves on.

If it is implemented well, with lots of forethought and effort, it is successful. Then you have an issue where everyone wants to copy that success, but doesn't want the work. So a hack job, copy-and-paste effort is done and it becomes the very thing people bemoaned and complained it and the market becomes saturated with it, diluting the overall world with a mass produced mess.

Point being, an Easy Button in gaming is going to be bad at best, or it will be good in its first form and then widely implemented until it becomes a nightmare. I see it as another feature implemented to further the divide between the classic Western RPG feel and more towards the established trend of "everyone can be a gamer and play our game, let's make it completely universal regardless of how much the coherency and congruency of the experience may suffer."

If people want easy games they can pick up for five minutes in their spare time, they'll play Angry Birds. If they want to enjoy a deep, rich story, they'll pick up a book or watch a movie. If they want to play an RPG, they should pick up and play an RPG. Not a game that tries to be all three at once, but does none of them exceptionally well.

[Silfren]

Disagreeing with Hepler is one thing. So is attacking her WORK.

But using your dislike of her opinions or her work as an excuse to air your misogyny is not okay. Nor is it okay to think that purchasing and enjoying a game--being a fan of a game--entitles you to blast such hatred at another person.

And quite honestly, now is really not the time to have a thread up with "I'm not going to hate on Jennifer but this is why I hate her work." She was just subjected to extreme sexism and generalized contempt. Leave her the hell alone for a while.

[stoicsentry2]

Before too long there will be no gamers on Bioware staff. That's where we've been headed. No wonder they thought DA2 was such a masterpiece, because they didn't have to play it!!!

[stoicsentry2]

Stanley Woo wrote...

musicallie44 wrote...
What I don't understand is why this is an issue at all?  Eventually someone will try to implement this feature in a game.  Players will either love or hate it...and that will determine the future of skipping combat and/or story.  

A similar system will be presented in Mass effect 3.

Thanks for reminding me not to buy it, then.

[Mitsukashira]

Pzykozis wrote...

Mitsukashira wrote...
It may only be my opinion, but I don’t feel the quality of her writing is enough to allow her to stand only on the strengths of it. A great writer can focus only on writing. A great concept artist and modeler can focus only on that, but they have to be great.

How does that even make sense? In my opinion you can only be a writer if you're a great writer otherwise you have to.. what? do two jobs? I write characters whilst making ui art with my feet? You know this thing is a job right? As an environment artist I don't write the plot aswell you know?

Also games dev isn't a dictatorship but if you think there's no management and people setting the course for the game whilst people have their own views below them then you're on some form of highly powerful drug.

 You could also try reading everything I've posted, and actually understand the point I was making. I don't expect any writer to pull multiple jobs. However if a writer is mediocre, or even just average, it shows and is (or can be) a negative against the product as a whole. Nobody gets excited about "okay" writing. If you have insight to work with the rest of the team to suggest ways to bring that "okay" writing to a new level, then you have something special. A great writer can simply write great material and it'll shine regardless of the game around it. How many reviews have you read where the reviewer made mention of a good plot, good writing, but poor voice acting or interface. That's a great writer lending their talents to one aspect of the creation, and doing so very successfully. A less talented writer would not be able to do so-- their work would not shine or be noticed as exceptional. It diminishes the product to some extent.

 I know it's my own opinion, but I've never walked away from the parts of the game Jennifer Hepler wrote for thinking that they were highlights of the game. If they worked better in tantem with the gameplay, or were presented in a more interesting way, perhaps I would have. They weren't, they were presented all in a very normal Bioware way, which is fine when a good writer is behind it. They felt lackluster to me, and this was before I even knew she worked on any of it (it is not a biased opinion). 

 You could even say that my issue is not exactly with her, but the very static design in games that will place gameplay and story as separate things to be experienced in succession at different times. Sometimes they should, but there should certainly be a better mixing of the two throughout. A more diverse and eclectic experience creates a better ground for interesting ideas and unconventional narrative to emerge. To create something like this, talented and creative writers are required. I don’t believe Jennifer Hepler is a talented writer. Her apparent fundamental lack of passion and understanding of video games will keep her at the level she is at, or even was at, when she made the oh-so-infamous comments so many are in an uproar over. Perhaps she would be better at writing an interactive novel.

 What you fail to realize is that a great project lead, on any creative project, will always listen to the ideas of those below him or her. They will always take the time (considering they actually have the time) to hear out a member of their crew that has an idea to create a better product. Their ability to decide if the idea is a good one, if it is feasible on the budget, if it will interfere with milestones, and if they have the resources is what that leader will have to decide. Ultimately if the idea is great enough, it'll be implemented in some way. If a valued writer has some input on how to effectively integrate his or her writing into the game (probably during a storyboard meeting of some kind), I'm sure those above the writer in the chain of command will certainly consider if it can be used. 


  

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

TooManyFreakingAccts wrote...

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.

It doesn't. I asked for YOUR opinion on why you are against such a feature.

While said Bioware employee said he'd be hesitant to include it, he also said he wouldn't be dead set against it--as you seem to be.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 22 février 2012 - 11:26 .

[rammsoldat]

Bioware need better PR, this stuff wouldnt have gotten this far had they not modeled their PR for Dragon age 2 on the North korea model.

In fairness its not as bad as the O2 phone company forum

edit: Oh and im not against an optional "skip gameplay" button but one would ask the question of if you intend to skip the gameplay why bother playing a game at all. why not grab a book or movie instead.

Modifié par rammsoldat, 22 février 2012 - 10:21 .

[Corker]

You know, some PC players already use the console command "killallhostiles" as a skip combat feature for DA:O.

The world has not yet ended, nor the gaming experiences of others ruined. They just get to play the game the way they want to.