288 réponses à ce sujet

[Wrathra]

Fast Jimmy 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.

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."

You present a good argument, and I find myself agreeing with you.

Maybe the problem is that the combat isn't all that great. I've never played a Bioware game because I love the combat - I don't think this is where Bioware's strengths are - where I'll play Diablo/WoW or Gears for that reason.

Perhaps really presenting multiple ways to solve a problem gameplay wise by really playing up the strengths of  characters via stealth, diplomacy, etc, is the answer. 

Modifié par Wrathra, 23 février 2012 - 12:17 .

[Pzykozis]

Mitsukashira wrote...

 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.

Well thats more upto to the lead than the writer surely? you're suggesting that a not so great writer should then take on extra none-core (basically managerial) work related stuff whilst they also push an inferior product (instead of spending time iterating their stuff and honing their craft)? Unless you mean the writers should pool their talent... and take the stuff that suits them the most.. in which case from Gaiders comments that's already what they do...

Vox and UI aren't writing related jobs though? the lines someone says sure, but then the actual performance is an audio job aswell? UI is a completely different thing all together.

Also, the apparent lack of passion seems kinda made up? I read parts of the article Hepler was in and she seemed very enthusiastic about games her first time at GDC was in her words like coming home... and I don't really think that theres been a lack of understanding of games portrayed either, I know a few folks who don't really games that much, one in particular that doesn't game at all that works for a fairly large studio, its more about loving your craft than loving games. It's not about playing games after all its about making them, and that ain't all fun and games.

As for the management that sounds overly maleable and like you've never opened hansoft and seen that you've been given 40 hours worth of work to do in 2 days. once production starts people are too busy aswell as already havig been given a budget and resources allocated to specific things, not set in stone but every change is resources diverted from one thing or another.

[KotorEffect3]

Didn't read the whlole thread I will just say I play for both story and combat.

[philippe willaume]

esper wrote...

snip

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.

Hi
I think your are fundamentally right, though, there are no difference between dialogue and combat, I think a console option like in DA:0 could do the trick.
You are spot on, In fact I enjoyed DA:0 combat because I had to improvised on a several global tactics every time where as in DA:2 it was very repetitive (as was playing DA:0 for you).
That being said ai enjoyed the combat in the ME demo, (and I missed the dialog depth but I find the lowered level of difficulty ridiculously easy.)

I can really imagine a DA or a ME game without combat and dialogue but really if there is an option to skip either for the people so minded. I am all for it. It is not advocating a simpler combat for all or getting rid of combat all together.
It is not because we have the “kill all” button that we have to use it
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 23 février 2012 - 01:21 .

[philippe willaume]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Well you see this is where it can start to be potentially worrying.
I fundamentally agree with you.  A kill all enemy buttons is just as fine as a skip dialogue option (personally I like combat and dialogs so not so much use to me but I can see how it would be useful for some)
 
A fair bit of people, including me, liked DA:0 combat , and after talking to several people who found DA:0 combat more painful than DA:2 combat.
It seems that the key of my enjoyment of DA:0 combat was the diversity that was forced on me by the suboptimal choices of char and companion development and class.
Where as in DA:2 (and in DA:0 for some) it was repeating the same thing over and over again in fact boss did not change that tactics it just takes more time.
 
Personally I think the combat in ME3 was a improvement in the right direction compared to ME1 and ME2 (on the two hardest settings, though on insanity the atlas fight can drag a bit), so I don’t think this is the way BW is going to follow but I hope you can appreciate that for some people that “kill all enemies button” is seen as get- out- of-jail-free card instead improving combat or way to avoid it (stealth skills and so on)
 
phil
 

Modifié par philippe willaume, 23 février 2012 - 01:40 .

[ChandlerL]

stoicsentry2 wrote...

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.

And I will. I like options. I won't take that option on the first couple of playthroughs but when I come back to replay this game a year or two from now, I'll find that option quite compelling.

Modifié par ChandlerL, 23 février 2012 - 03:53 .

[Bad Sandwidge]

This feature has already been in two games I know off the top of my head - Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire. In neither case did I ever use the feature, but I know my wife did. There is absolutely nothing - nothing - wrong with the option.

And guess what? Despite the feature, both games did very well.

Modifié par Bad Sandwidge, 23 février 2012 - 04:00 .

[Stanley Woo]

Bad Sandwidge wrote...

This feature has already been in two games I know off the top of my head - Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire. In neither case did I ever use the feature, but I know my wife did. There is absolutely nothing - nothing - wrong with the option.

And guess what? Despite the feature, both games did very well.

Surprisingly, those who felt like using the option, did so. Those who did not want to use the option, did not. Equally as surprisingly, the game industry has not collapsed, neither game failed to sell or be appealing to consumers, and no one's taste in videogames has changed as a result.

[Silfren]

stoicsentry2 wrote...

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.

Unless I've misunderstood, it will be optional.  I understand the impetus to not buy games that are driven by mechanics you don't like.  But when a given feature is NOT integral to the game, but only an option, why would you choose not to buy it?  

[Silfren]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Bad Sandwidge wrote...

This feature has already been in two games I know off the top of my head - Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire. In neither case did I ever use the feature, but I know my wife did. There is absolutely nothing - nothing - wrong with the option.

And guess what? Despite the feature, both games did very well.

Surprisingly, those who felt like using the option, did so. Those who did not want to use the option, did not. Equally as surprisingly, the game industry has not collapsed, neither game failed to sell or be appealing to consumers, and no one's taste in videogames has changed as a result.

Stop it.  You keep resorting to common sense and rationality like this, and certain people's brains will explode.

[Gibb_Shepard]

A skip combat button in DA2 would have been invaluable.

[HiroVoid]

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.

Is there any difference in story mode, and just setting the game to very easy?  If so, that staple has been around for a long time including games like Fallout where you can just go on 'very easy', and basically have to literally try to pretty much get killed in the game.

[devSin]

HiroVoid wrote...

Is there any difference in story mode, and just setting the game to very easy?  If so, that staple has been around for a long time including games like Fallout where you can just go on 'very easy', and basically have to literally try to pretty much get killed in the game.

I think it's supposed to have some differences in enemy count and possibility unit types, and who knows, it could do away with some trash encounters altogether.

I know I used the story mode in the demo and jumped up with the abominations that spawn in at the end of the intro; I went melee on all of them with an adept, and I could not die. I wanted to, and I thought I could, but I just kept on punching and kept on living.

And then the Normandy shows up and drops bombs on you, because they don't relocate Shepard until later in the cutscene.

Modifié par devSin, 23 février 2012 - 05:33 .

[HiroVoid]

I just assumed it was like that because even if you choose action mode, they still have options in the menu to change convos to automatic, so I don't think you'd just choose them at the beginning.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Corker wrote...

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.

Quoted For Truth.

Wrathra wrote...

Perhaps really presenting multiple ways to solve a problem gameplay wise by really playing up the strengths of  characters via stealth, diplomacy, etc, is the answer. 

While cool (I'm all for avoidable combat), it isn't the answer, and there's no reason why stealth/negotiation would always work even if it was always possible.

Even if I never used it, there are two reasons why I'd be in favour of a way to fast forward through combat.

1. Time.

I often skip through dialogue when I'm in a hurry. I have subtitles on, and I read faster than the NPC talks. Doesn't mean I don't like the dialogue or the voice actor, just that I know how the sentence is going to end and I'm eager to see the next one.

It's similar with combat. I know how it's going to end. I win, or I lose until I win, so why delay the inevitable? No matter how I fight it, it doesn't matter. Lose, I have to try again. Win, it's either get on with the game or get dialogue/a cutscene that has no bearing on how I won, only that I did. All combat nets you is some spent consumables and maybe a wound or two. While it may provide story context by virtue of existing, how it's fought ultimately has no bearing on what happens when it's over. Which leads to point 2.

2. Combat Mechanics and Story are Divorced

This is a big one for people who want to bypass combat to get to the story.

The process of combat has no relevance to the plot. No one, friend or foe, cares if you used blood magic, did a sneak attack, laid a tripwire trap, used poison, smashed someone's skull with a hammer, made someone burn to death etc. I don't know if it's even possible from a development standpoint, but if the use of skills and consumables in combat could eg. influence how a fallen foe begs for his life/spits defiance with his final breath, or if it could prompt additional story content like random encounters/miniquests ("OH SWEET MAKER, what poison did you use on this poor unfortunate?! It's perfect! Can I buy some off you to use on my wi--the rats in my cellar?"), I'd find combat more worth my while. I'd be encouraged to explore the story options it could provide rather than discouraged by the fact there are none.

Linking combat mechanics to random story encounters might be tricky to implement, I have no idea. But it'd be awesome and make for some unique games based on the PC's skillset.

[Mitsukashira]

Pzykozis wrote...

Mitsukashira wrote...

 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.

Well thats more upto to the lead than the writer surely? you're suggesting that a not so great writer should then take on extra none-core (basically managerial) work related stuff whilst they also push an inferior product (instead of spending time iterating their stuff and honing their craft)? Unless you mean the writers should pool their talent... and take the stuff that suits them the most.. in which case from Gaiders comments that's already what they do...

Vox and UI aren't writing related jobs though? the lines someone says sure, but then the actual performance is an audio job aswell? UI is a completely different thing all together.

Also, the apparent lack of passion seems kinda made up? I read parts of the article Hepler was in and she seemed very enthusiastic about games her first time at GDC was in her words like coming home... and I don't really think that theres been a lack of understanding of games portrayed either, I know a few folks who don't really games that much, one in particular that doesn't game at all that works for a fairly large studio, its more about loving your craft than loving games. It's not about playing games after all its about making them, and that ain't all fun and games.

As for the management that sounds overly maleable and like you've never opened hansoft and seen that you've been given 40 hours worth of work to do in 2 days. once production starts people are too busy aswell as already havig been given a budget and resources allocated to specific things, not set in stone but every change is resources diverted from one thing or another.

 I do not mean to insult or offend you, but you are not responding to me in a way that moves the discussion forward. The majority of what you are saying to argue against my thoughts and opinions have already been addressed in other parts of my reply to you, or in other posts that I have made. I do not expect you to read the posts I have made to other people, but I hope you do not expect me to repeat myself. I will reply to a few points that I feel I have not been redundant about to any significant extent, however. 

 I am well aware that Vox and UI are not the same job as writing. I find it rather disappointing that you can take everything I have said, and assume that is where the base of my knowledge rests. I was using them as an example of one thing related to the writing, and one thing not so much related to the writing. They were illustrating my point that great writing will shine through the murkiness of inferior portions of the game, regardless of how directly tied those parts of the game are to the writing. This is true for great art direction, graphics, gameplay, ect. A reviewer, or anyone really, can look at a product and recognize that one portion of it is superior to the underwhelming rest of it-- the rest of it could also be good, which is a greater testament to the talent of the writer. 

 As you have alluded to, there are changes that are made all of the time in game development. I never once said that all ideas are used, or even that all good ideas are used. I mentioned that great ideas are likely to be used, but that is at the judgment of the project leads. Just look at Blizzard and Valve, who take forever on their games, because they are always changing aspects of the game around. Both are highly successful and full of money, but I fail to see how a studio as successful and with as much influence as Bioware would not have the resources to throw around at innovation. It is rather that they will not, because they prefer to be safe and successful. 

 If they wished to innovate, they would not have made this skip battle, or super easy battle mode, for Mass Effect 3. They would have, as another user elaborated on, created a more fluid and less obtuse way of the player avoiding combat all together. Is adding a third wheel to a motorcycle truely innovative, or is it a quick and easy way to create something "new"? 

Modifié par Mitsukashira, 23 février 2012 - 05:37 .

[devSin]

HiroVoid wrote...

I just assumed it was like that because even if you choose action mode, they still have options in the menu to change convos to automatic, so I don't think you'd just choose them at the beginning.

It obviously tweaks damage taken for the player (and likely damage dealt by; and probably a ton of other modifiers). So it's at least very much like casual difficulty (although it seemed even more forgiving).

But I think action mode also gets rid of character creation (in addition to having auto-choice in conversations), so story mode could also change or eliminate other combat-related stuff.

It could simply be there as the visual antonym of action mode (but in reality is just casual difficulty), but I'm hoping there's more to it than that. If the need exists to even have an action mode, I'd want for there to be something on the opposite end of the spectrum (the opposite of action mode isn't "casual difficulty"—that's the opposite of "insane difficulty", which is not what action mode is—but I'm not sure exactly what it should be).

Modifié par devSin, 23 février 2012 - 05:40 .

[HiroVoid]

Fanboy nostalgia comment: Oh how I remember the way Shadow of the Colossus combined its gameplay, atmosphere, and story altogether so perfectly~

Also, the gameplay and story need to be much more linked in DA3. The combat in DA2 honestly just ruined immersion a lot of times. I also think it would be interesting to combine gameplay and story elements with events like using poison in your inventory to assassinate an opposing character without confronting them. That's more in Betheseda's(and I'm sure other companies I'm not listing) area though.

@Devsin:  Interesting to know.  I didn't think it affected anything.  My favorite games still tend to be those that combine the combat very well with the rest of the game though.  I'd add the game mentioned above with the MGS series.  The amount of easter eggs you can find by doing certain things is really nice and incredible in that series too.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 23 février 2012 - 05:28 .

[AlexXIV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

I think the issue with 'people like you' as in oppposite to 'people like me' (who have enough time to finish games) is not about combat or no combat. You say it yourself, too much grinding. Even I feel that way because in both DA games combat does have lenghts. Especially if you feel that you are doing the exactly same thing again and again in an seemingly endless row. And even worse if it is mostly about button mashing or auto attack.

So I would suggest that we just make combat more meaningful and fun. The game does not need to consist mostly of combat but if there is combat it should be fun at least. The suggestion to skip combat is bad because basically the combat in Bioware games is already pretty bad. And including the option to skip it makes people think that you're planning to give it even less attention in the future.

One game that did combat rather well was AoC. Despite it's many flaws the game had/has a well done combat system. For example you do combat combos. As in, instead of hitting one button to execute a skill you have to row a number (2-4) of different keys (for example r to start, t for the 2nd and z/y for the finisher if you set up your controls that way on the keyboard). At the same time you would have to face your target, try to hit it from a better direction (ie. back) and move to avoid getting hit. I mean that's extremely hard to learn (months if not years) especially if you think that you still need a good reaction/reflexes. In PvE (mobkilling) it is a bit easier because you have difficulty settings mind you.

The point is, don't skip combat, make it worthwhile. Make it so people have to train for it, learn and grow better every time. A MP is maybe not the worst of ideas so people can fight each other when they just feel like training their combat skill and don't want to bother with the story. That said you maybe see that there could probably also people who want to skip story and just go for the action at times. If it is fun action. And even on the ME boards right now you get about the same reaction as from the idea to skip combat. It is both recieved badly because honestly, it looks like you are going to dumb down the part that is made 'skippable'.

As some people already said, options are always good. The more the better. But, if at some point you guys figure out that some optional content isn't really used by enough people we know what happens. You will not bother with it anymore at some point. And that's bad. Honestly, and alot of people probably feel that way, if you want to skip something skip the pseudo romances. And I don't only mean make them optional, because they are already. Get rid of them. That's doing much more for the quality of your games than skipping combat.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 février 2012 - 06:57 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

agree with op if there is no gameplay then the game stops being a game and you end up with dragonage 2

[TEWR]

Wow.... this thread jumped a few pages.

From what I've read, I must say I agree with Fast Jimmy. I would rather Bioware focus on improving the combat and other gameplay rather then implement a skip combat button.

If Bioware feels that they still want to implement a skip combat feature after working on making gameplay and story more cohesive and better linked together, then that's fine with me. I won't use it, but I'll at least know they gave the gameplay needed attention.
 
My fear is that a "skip combat" button -- were something like that to ever actually be worked on by Bioware -- would take priority over working on the actual gameplay and combat.

EDIT: cleared up a few things.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 février 2012 - 07:01 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Wow.... this thread jumped a few pages.

From what I've read, I must say I agree with Fast Jimmy. I would rather Bioware focus on improving the combat and other gameplay rather then implement a skip combat button.

If Bioware feels that they still want to implement a skip combat feature after working on making gameplay and story more cohesive and better linked together, then that's fine with me. I won't use it, but I'll at least know they gave the gameplay needed attention.
 
My fear is that a "skip combat" button -- were something like that to ever actually be worked on by Bioware -- would take priority over working on the actual gameplay and combat.

EDIT: cleared up a few things.

There wouldn't be much implementation required though, because as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, a console command already exists where you can kill all hostiles. Turning it into a button accessible via the GUI shouldn't take all that much work away from improving general gameplay.

It would be desirable whether or not combat was improved, because no matter how easy combat is or how pretty it looks it'll always take time (if you add up all the minutes every combat takes, it's a lot of time). And honestly, from my perspective, if it's super duper easy where you can't even die...forcing people to do that combat for the sake of the combat is as infuriating as two divergent dialogue choices giving you the fundamentally same outcome.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I spend like 30 minutes writing something up and because of my stupid touchpad, instead of pressing backspace to delete a spelling mistake, it takes me back to the previous page in my browser. So my post is gone.

FFS.

Suffice to say, my thoughts broadly correlate with that of Fast Jimmy and others. I could elaborate, but I'm too angry to bother right now.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 février 2012 - 08:08 .

[Joy Divison]

People who worry about a "skip combat" button option are concerned that 1) gamers who dislike combat design combat oriented games and 2) combat will receive less priority than it does which will make for worse combat mechanics - a bad thing for combat heavy games like DA.

These are not unreasonable premises. And I actually kind of agree with #1. Sure Hepler probably had zero influence in DA:O combat system and thus there was no negative effect, But that also means she is probably not adding constructive combat feedback and thus no making a meaningful positive contribution when it comes to combat mechanics. It not necessary to have people who like combat design these games, but their input could offer valuable insights and make the process more efficient and ultimately wind up with a better system.

I'm not sure I agree with #2 and I wouldn't be money on it, but it could wind up being a long term trend we notice in five years or so.

Ultimately the solution is less "trash mob" combats and more meaningful encounters.

[DragonRageGT]

Well, EA's FIFA 2013 might come with a "skip all the football gameplay features in a match directly to the penalties shoot out" for those who love football and have no skill in the dribbling, passing, long passing, tackling, viewing the whole team tactics, etc. (I mean football as the whole world but the US know it, the one we play with our feet.)

No one was ever born skilled in anything. Only a Swallow is born with pre-birth knowledge of the map of the world form their annual migration thing but then, they can't learn anything past that. We can learn. We can learn from our mistakes. We can't just skip that part or fast forward it. Watch "Click" for it.

People should really try some "old" hardcore RPG's and learn from it, like Gothic 2 or BG. Thanks God I couldn't take the easy way out and FF or skip it. It forced me to learn and wow, it's fraking amazing the feeling after beating the game on the hardest. Else, I know the perfect game for those who want to actually dumb down even more what made games great.

THE BARD: Saviors of Queens

It's a really short game (no more than 2 hours of gameplay with autoplay feature on the easiest difficulty setting) that will not burden you with anything gameplay-related.

And to think it was an April's fool joke...