288 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Because Hepler fits the stereotype of a mother with kids who does the housework and sucks at the 'manly' parts of games? Should this demographic be silent and ignored so as to not to reinforce the 'chicks suck at games' mindset? Was she out of line to provide honest context for her answers?

I don't see how the negativity towards video games will help draw non-gamers to play.  More like reinforce the stereotypes.  If I was of that mindset and listened to Hepler's pitch, I'd probably ask why in the world I should pay $60 for a movie.  edit- Also, she is not knocking just the "manly" combat, but inventory and character creation and a lot of core RPG elements. This sounds like a whole different genre, maybe small-scale JRPG style games or something. 

While they do contain a lot of combat, Dragon Age is not on par with Diablo in terms of action elements. If you completely removed combat from Diablo you'd be walking around an empty world, excepting merchants. Dragon Age has more to its gameplay than combat, which is what I was driving at. Dragon Age also grants you experience for reading books, solving quests that have no basis in combat, and so forth. Yes, you are right that all the skills and items in DA2 are devoted to combat, but it's a direction I personally despise--a sentiment I, and others, share with the latest edition of D&D.

The hero is still a fighter.

Modifié par Addai67, 24 février 2012 - 03:44 .

[Silfren]

DragonRageGT wrote...

First, I'd think it is a real minority, like 10 out of 1,000,000 gamers who are moms with babies and no time to play and insist in playing a video game.

Perhaps some 20 out of 2,000,000 would love a "skip" button in a RPG which is made of both combat and story. If it were the other way around, games would be like that for a long time now.

If someone "hates" some aspects of a game, don't play it. There are lots of games which have no combat at all. If you are no gamer then don't play games. If you get out in the rain, prepare to get wet. If you jump in the fire, get ready to burn. If you want to play games which have combat and story, L2P. If you don't like to play, to go down to the playground!

I realize that a lot of guys don't want to believe that women play games, but that 10 out of a million guess is so far from the reality it's just stupid.  Many women play games, and in particular quite a lot of women play Bioware games.  You can bet that a lot of those women are mothers, just as a lot of the men who play games are fathers.

[Silfren]

Joy Divison wrote...

@ Silfren

You are so committed to defending Hepler, you are taking what I said way too far. You say I implied that "she does not currently provide a meaningful contribution to the game design." That is so far off base I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. And nothing I said implied that she was the primary game designer or that nobody else was providing valuable feedback on combat. In the post above you complain about people who grossly exaggerate her comments that have been "divorced from the context in which she said it." Hello?

Tell me where I implied Hepler does not provide a meaningful contribution to Bioware. Just because I say she could be a more valuable contributor if she actually liked the combat (which is the heart of the Dragon Age games) enough to play it and aid in the development of combat mechanics does *NOT* mean, imply, suggest, of infer that I believe her contributions to the game are not meaninful or she isn't doing her job. That's you putting words in my mouth.

I'm going by this:  "You're right.  But would Hepler not be a more valuable contributor to
the game design team if she could offer relevant observations on the
game beyond that of her job title?  It's not necessary, but having a
excellent writer who could offer cogent advice on combat could only be a
net positive, no?"

I don't see a way to read this that doesn't end with your meaning being that because of Hepler's opinion about combat, she is incapable of offering relevant observations on the game, and she is also incapable of offering cogent advice on combat.

And then there's this:

"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."

You didn't imply it, you stated it.  My assertion may not have been precisely what you said or meant, but it was far from being off-base.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 février 2012 - 04:50 .

[batlin]

If she doesn't have time to do the "play" part of playing a game, maybe she should just watch a movie instead. Please don't bring this casual "skip the hard part" bulls*** into games, otherwise it's no longer a game. If there's no challenge and therefore no personal satisfaction in progressing through the narrative, what do you have? Oh yeah, a movie.

Imagine this thought process in any other kind of game: "Oh I don't have time to sit through this part of the game, can I just take your Rooks, Knights, Bishops and Queen off the board? Thanks."

I do not condone any hateful speech toward Hepler, but quite frankly, she is everything that is wrong with the gaming industry.

Modifié par batlin, 24 février 2012 - 04:47 .

[DragonRageGT]

Silfren wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

First, I'd think it is a real minority, like 10 out of 1,000,000 gamers who are moms with babies and no time to play and insist in playing a video game.

Perhaps some 20 out of 2,000,000 would love a "skip" button in a RPG which is made of both combat and story. If it were the other way around, games would be like that for a long time now.

If someone "hates" some aspects of a game, don't play it. There are lots of games which have no combat at all. If you are no gamer then don't play games. If you get out in the rain, prepare to get wet. If you jump in the fire, get ready to burn. If you want to play games which have combat and story, L2P. If you don't like to play, to go down to the playground!

I realize that a lot of guys don't want to believe that women play games, but that 10 out of a million guess is so far from the reality it's just stupid.  Many women play games, and in particular quite a lot of women play Bioware games.  You can bet that a lot of those women are mothers, just as a lot of the men who play games are fathers.

English is not even my language and I can read better than some? Which part of "who are moms with babies" is so hard to understand?

So, let's start with you. Are you a mom with a your born child? Breast feeding yet? I am pretty sure many women play BW games and of those, many have children. I wouldn't be surprised their kids introduced them to video games though. Not babies.

[thegoldfinch]

batlin wrote...

If she doesn't have time to do the "play" part of playing a game, maybe she should just watch a movie instead. Please don't bring this casual "skip the hard part" bulls*** into games, otherwise it's no longer a game. If there's no challenge and therefore no personal satisfaction in progressing through the narrative, what do you have? Oh yeah, a movie.

Imagine this thought process in any other kind of game: "Oh I don't have time to sit through this part of the game, can I just take your Rooks, Knights, Bishops and Queen off the board? Thanks."

I do not condone any hateful speech toward Hepler, but quite frankly, she is everything that is wrong with the gaming industry.

Your analogy is flawed. Chess doesn't have a built in story. There isn't a personal ongoing drama between the Queen and the Knight while the Bishop murders the Rook in his sleep. There isn't a main character or a villain built into the game - it's just you and a friend. Those are not the same things.

You may get your sense of satisfaction from combat and overcoming a difficult challenge. That's fine. I understand. Other people may get their sense of satisfaction from being involved in a story and exploring foreign lands. That is also fine. Just because these people are different from you does not mean their experiences or their preferences are any less legitimate.

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

For the record, I believe Bobby Kotick is all that is wrong with the gaming industry, but if you seriously feel that honor belongs to a perfectly decent woman who writes stories and has personal opinions, then who am I to say you are ill informed?

Modifié par pixieface, 24 février 2012 - 05:19 .

[DragonRageGT]

pixieface wrote...

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

So, it is NOT an option to skip. It is a "you must try first enough times to be allowed to skip since you might get frustrated instead of searching around or asking for help about how to overcome". It is NOT a skip button, is it?

Modifié par DragonRageGT, 24 février 2012 - 05:25 .

[thegoldfinch]

DragonRageGT wrote...

pixieface wrote...

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

So, it is NOT an option to skip. It is a "you must try first enough times to be allowed to skip since you might get frustrated instead of searching around or asking for help about how to overcome". It is NOT a skip button, is it?

...

It's a skip button. You skip things.

[TEWR]

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

The Simpsons Hit and Run had a similar thing about a decade ago. If you failed a mission repeatedly -- say time ran out on a timed mission, or you trashed a needed car, or whatever -- you were given the option to skip it entirely and move to the next.

[batlin]

Your analogy is flawed. Chess doesn't have a built in story. There isn't a personal ongoing drama between the Queen and the Knight while the Bishop murders the Rook in his sleep. There isn't a main character or a villain built into the game - it's just you and a friend. Those are not the same things.

Yes. There is no inherent story in the game of chess. That's precisely the point. If you were to remove the gameplay from chess, there is nothing left. and after all, a video game is just a game you play on a screen.

You may get your sense of satisfaction from combat and overcoming a difficult challenge. That's fine. I understand. Other people may get their sense of satisfaction from being involved in a story and exploring foreign lands. That is also fine. Just because these people are different from you does not mean their experiences or their preferences are any less legitimate.

I did not say "satisfaction". I said "personal satisfaction". Watching a cutscene or selecting a dialogue option requires no skill or knowledge on the part of the player, therefore there is no sense of accomplishment or, yes, personal satisfaction, because you didn't do anything that anybody with a pulse couldn't. If you do not get satisfaction from overcoming an obstacle and being challenged, that is 100% fine, but I would point out that such a person would have much more fun with an interactive novel than a game, video or otherwise, because rules, challenge, and winning is an integral part of what a game is.

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

L.A. Noire barely qualifies as a game. Even if you fail miserably and do everything wrong, you'll still find yourself in the exact same conclusion you would if you did everything right. Interrogations are easily the most interesting part of the gameplay....until you realize that you can just accuse people of lying for absolutely anything and you will know immediately if they are lying if they say somethign along the lines of "I bet you don't have proof", which of course always means you DO have proof, at which point you can present it or rescind it without any strikes on your record. if you want a much better L.A. Noire experience than the game, watch L.A. Confidential. A way better story, and only slightly less interactivity than Noire.

but enough about L.A. Noire, no, if story and gameplay were weaved together into one, then there would be no reason to skip any gameplay now, would there? And what better way is there to remove any amount of gratification from progressing through a story than letting you skip it if you suck at holding the analog stick forward for 2 minutes? Again, if you are indeed THAT averted to a semblance of challenge in gameplay, maybe you should just watch a movie instead.

For the record, I believe Bobby Kotick is all that is wrong with the gaming industry, but if you seriously feel that honor belongs to a perfectly decent woman who writes stories and has personal opinions, then who am I to say you are ill informed?

At least Bobby Kottick doesn't bog down Blizzard's games with sub-par writing.

Modifié par batlin, 24 février 2012 - 05:38 .

[TEWR]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...



For a lot of combats (the ones that aren't rigged to be special), you usually accomplish it exactly the same way you accomplished the previous combat. That's why it can get so tedious.

That's a failing of both games. Personally speaking anyway, as both games' combat can be approached almost exactly the same way almost all the time.

Which is why gameplay needs to be improved. So it provides a different experience.

Now, I wouldn't be adverse to skipping gameplay only becoming available if you failed a certain amount of times, a la The Simpsons Hit and Run. At the Game Over menu, you'd see the option to skip the current section of gameplay and move to the next.

Plus, RPGers have imaginations. I'm sure they can imagine a good fight scene to fill in the gaps.

Touche. I've seen fanfic that proves that RPGers have vivid imaginations.

And far better writing talent then I currently have

Do I have to dignify that with an answer? Come on.

you don't have to, but I think it's a valid concern for me to have.

I don't think it'd be hard to figure out what happened. Combat starts! I click my fast-forward button. Bad guys fall over (after what I'm sure was a thrilling battle). I win. Cutscene!

While I couldn't care less about loot, and I'd consider it fair if you *did* miss out if you didn't fight the fight, if a 'kill all hostiles' was implemented then there's nothing to stop xp and loot dropping.

I didn't mean so much that you'd lose out on loot all the time if you used such a feature, but more so that you'd miss out on specifically designed quests like Tranquility.

Easy Mode exists so people can easily plow through the game. Easy isn't the point. Fast is. And I see no problem allowing people to shorten their game's length if that's what they want.

You misunderstand methinks. When I say you can easily plow through the game, I mean that ou could just spam the feature and skip all combat.

Which ends up defeating the purpose of leveling up and skill selection for those players that use it, because every fight becomes winnable no matter what.

Unless Bioware can implement what I said above. Which wouldn't be too hard.

*shrug* No matter how awesome it may become, some people have little patience for combat and play RPGs primarily for the story content and NPC interactions. Making fights more challenging and tactical is cool and all, but for now it's still just time-eating combat.

Sadly, this is indeed the case. It's just mindless combat that exists purely to take up time, instead of really providing a challenge.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 février 2012 - 06:06 .

[Addai]

pixieface wrote...

Your analogy is flawed. Chess doesn't have a built in story. There isn't a personal ongoing drama between the Queen and the Knight while the Bishop murders the Rook in his sleep. There isn't a main character or a villain built into the game - it's just you and a friend. Those are not the same things.

Chess does have a story.  It's a war being played out on the game board.  How the war proceeds is decided by the gameplay.

But let's not get hung up on the "skip button."  As I said upthread, she was dissing a lot of core RPG elements besides combat.  If those are taken out, RPG fans do react.  Of course it's not fair to just single out Ms. Hepler, but who needs inventory, customization, crafting and all that other boring stuff! was obviously a design pillar of DA2 and one reason why a lot of us felt the game was hollowed out.

[DragonRageGT]

pixieface wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

pixieface wrote...

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

So, it is NOT an option to skip. It is a "you must try first enough times to be allowed to skip since you might get frustrated instead of searching around or asking for help about how to overcome". It is NOT a skip button, is it?

...

It's a skip button. You skip things.

But you can't just skip it first time around, can you. You said it yourself: "if you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times..." .. you cannot skip it before trying and failing, can you? So it is not a skip button. It is the priiiize!

[thegoldfinch]

batlin wrote...
Yes. There is no inherent story in the game of chess. That's precisely the point. If you were to remove the gameplay from chess, there is nothing left. and after all, a video game is just a game you play on a screen.

You can't compare removing the gameplay from chess to removing the combat from a video game. In the game of chess all you have is chess. In a game, there are multiple facets that draw in an audience that do not involve combat, like story, characters, exploration, and role playing. I said that your analogy is faulty because these two things are not analogous.

I did not say "satisfaction". I said "personal satisfaction". Watching a cutscene or selecting a dialogue option requires no skill or knowledge on the part of the player, therefore there is no sense of accomplishment or, yes, personal satisfaction, because you didn't do anything that anybody with a pulse couldn't. If you do not get satisfaction from overcoming an obstacle and being challenged, that is 100% fine, but I would point out that such a person would have much more fun with an interactive novel than a game, video or otherwise, because rules, challenge, and winning is an integral part of what a game is.

Semantics. You get personal satisfaction from overcoming difficult combat and beating records, while you may view story elements as a meaningless but pretty bow that gets in the way of your combat. Another person gets satisfaction from participating in the story and making decisions, while they see the combat as this annoying thing in their way of being involved in the game world.

They are both valid experiences. They both pertain to the way games are made today. And no where did I say anything about watching a cutscene being the story elements I was referring to. I don't like cut scenes either.

L.A. Noire barely qualifies as a game. Even if you fail miserably and do everything wrong, you'll still find yourself in the exact same conclusion you would if you did everything right. Interrogations are easily the most interesting part of the gameplay....until you realize that you can just accuse people of lying for absolutely anything and you will know immediately if they are lying if they say somethign along the lines of "I bet you don't have proof", which of course always means you DO have proof, at which point you can present it or rescind it without any strikes on your record. if you want a much better L.A. Noire experience than the game, watch L.A. Confidential. A way better story, and only slightly less interactivity than Noire.

Barely qualified as a game to you. It is still a video game. It is still marketed as such. It is still sold as such. You are controlling a character on screen while solving puzzles, fulfilling quest objectives, exploring L.A., and shooting dudes. Sounds like a game to me. Part of the appeal of L.A. Noire was finding clues, inspecting a scene of a crime, interrogating suspects, putting together a puzzle of whodunnit, and being involved in the "feel" of old L.A. as a police officer, which meant car chases, on-foot chases, and shoot-outs.

You simply cannot do that just watching L.A. Confidential. You cannot be a tangible part of a foreign world and help solve crimes by watching a movie. You can feel this vicariously through the magic of imagination or fanfiction or what have you, but only video games offer an avenue of interactivity that you cannot get anywhere else.

Just because you did not like the game does not make it invalid as a game.

but enough about L.A. Noire, no, if story and gameplay were weaved together into one, then there would be no reason to skip any gameplay now, would there? And what better way is there to remove any amount of gratification from progressing through a story than letting you skip it if you suck at holding the analog stick forward for 2 minutes? Again, if you are indeed THAT averted to a semblance of challenge in gameplay, maybe you should just watch a movie instead.

I never said "skip gameplay". I said "skip combat". Two different things.

Let me say this: The only time I remember seeing gameplay and storytelling combined into one happy, cohesive, and near perfect product is when I played Bastion. The narrator did not interfere with your progression and he responded to your actions in game, which meant your character was defined by his actions and his combat choices. The story gave you a few branching paths and there was actually an in-game lore reason for new game plus. That was some of the best twenty dollars I've ever spent.

But not all games are Bastion. Not all games are chess, or Halo, or Gears of War, or Final Fantasy, or Dragon Age or Mass Effect. People get their kicks from different games for different reasons. Even though I loved Bastion, I don't want to see that formula repeated again and again and again to the exclusion of all other formulas because (and this may shock everyone) I love many different kinds of games - including story heavy BioWare games.

I have a passion for compelling stories and it is BioWare that, currently, does it best.  I also enjoy the challenge of combat. There is no where else for me to go to find what I am seeking. But I can understand how someone who is drawn to the stories, the interactivity, and the immersion like me but does not enjoy combat, is not good at combat, or does not have the time for it would appreciate a skip button.

Why should it bother you if a skip button is optional? They are not taking away anything from you or me by including this.

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to include a story mode, such as what BioWare is doing for Mass Effect 3, but offer extra rewards for the people who put in the effort to surmount different combat challenges. People who enjoy combat would still get the prestige of overcoming a challenge and those who enjoy participating in a story don't have to bother with trophies or what have you, and they can just enjoy what they want to enjoy. Maybe the extra rewards would entice those who are not good at combat to practice and get better in order to earn those rewards, which could potentially increase the hardcore gamer population with time and exposure. Who knows!

But that's just me. I am crazy, after all.

At least Bobby Kottick doesn't bog down Blizzard's games with sub-par writing.

He has also milked billions (with a "b") of dollars out of consumers with sub-par products while displaying a frankly shocking irreverence for gamers and encouraging an atmosphere of mediocrity and imitation in place of ingenuity and creativity. But hold the phone, ladies and gents, here comes a writer that some feel is sub-par! Sub-par! Oh, my. Someone call da police.

[thegoldfinch]

DragonRageGT wrote...

pixieface wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...

pixieface wrote...

Having the option to skip combat does not make a game any less a game if you weave story and gameplay together as one. It's been pointed out before but it bears repeating: L.A. Noire did this well. If you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times, you could skip it and get on with the story and the investigation. That worked perfectly and no one launched into a tirade about how L.A. Noire was killing our video games.

So, it is NOT an option to skip. It is a "you must try first enough times to be allowed to skip since you might get frustrated instead of searching around or asking for help about how to overcome". It is NOT a skip button, is it?

...

It's a skip button. You skip things.

But you can't just skip it first time around, can you. You said it yourself: "if you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times..." .. you cannot skip it before trying and failing, can you? So it is not a skip button. It is the priiiize!

This is a very strange argument and I don't really understand why this is happening, but your last sentence made me laugh, so I like you.

L.A. Noire has a button that lets you skip through combat. To the best of my memory, it only allows you to skip the combat after you have attempted it and failed. But regardless of when it allows you to skip combat, you can still skip combat. It is a skip button. It is a button to skip. My brain is skipping. Is my brain a button? I am losing vision someone call the doctor I can't

[DragonRageGT]

pixieface wrote...

DragonRageGT wrote...


But you can't just skip it first time around, can you. You said it yourself: "if you failed a combat encounter or a chase sequence enough times..." .. you cannot skip it before trying and failing, can you? So it is not a skip button. It is the priiiize!

This is a very strange argument and I don't really understand why this is happening, but your last sentence made me laugh, so I like you.

L.A. Noire has a button that lets you skip through combat. To the best of my memory, it only allows you to skip the combat after you have attempted it and failed. But regardless of when it allows you to skip combat, you can still skip combat. It is a skip button. It is a button to skip. My brain is skipping. Is my brain a button? I am losing vision someone call the doctor I can't

Thanks. I am a nice guy. An old nice guy. =)

What I meant is that the skip option doesn't just pop up when we first face a combat phase. We have to "earn" it (for lack of a better vocabulary), by at least trying to beat the combat before the Skip Button with the skip option is available to us. (never played L.A. Noire though... no consoles here)

A "skip button" as a first option is like a "God Mode" option available at Game Options Menu. It shouldn't happen. It is cheating. So, if people want to cheat their way out of a combat, it is ok. I understand that. I'll never respect that. But I understand that. Use a cheat command and it is done.

No need for developers to stop focusing on making the gameplay and combat more fun, challenging and rewarding because they might believe that most people won't go through it if they had a "skip button" available.

[Joy Divison]

Silfren wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

@ Silfren

You are so committed to defending Hepler, you are taking what I said way too far. You say I implied that "she does not currently provide a meaningful contribution to the game design." That is so far off base I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. And nothing I said implied that she was the primary game designer or that nobody else was providing valuable feedback on combat. In the post above you complain about people who grossly exaggerate her comments that have been "divorced from the context in which she said it." Hello?

Tell me where I implied Hepler does not provide a meaningful contribution to Bioware. Just because I say she could be a more valuable contributor if she actually liked the combat (which is the heart of the Dragon Age games) enough to play it and aid in the development of combat mechanics does *NOT* mean, imply, suggest, of infer that I believe her contributions to the game are not meaninful or she isn't doing her job. That's you putting words in my mouth.

I'm going by this:  "You're right.  But would Hepler not be a more valuable contributor to
the game design team if she could offer relevant observations on the
game beyond that of her job title?  It's not necessary, but having a
excellent writer who could offer cogent advice on combat could only be a
net positive, no?"

I don't see a way to read this that doesn't end with your meaning being that because of Hepler's opinion about combat, she is incapable of offering relevant observations on the game, and she is also incapable of offering cogent advice on combat.

And then there's this:

"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."

You didn't imply it, you stated it.  My assertion may not have been precisely what you said or meant, but it was far from being off-base.

Wow.  I'm not sure it is possible to have an actual conversation with you.

You miss "you're right," "it's not necessary," and my implication that she is an "excellent writer," then proceed to boldface "advice on combat," and claim I mean "incapable of offering relevant advice on the game"?

Are you serious?

That's how you defend your nonsensical and slanderous claim that I implied "she does not currently provide a meaningful contribution to the game design"?

Look, you have the right to defend Hepler against personal attacks.  You have the right to disagree with my opinions.  That's fine.  But you are so off base with your implications and misrepresent my statements to such a degree your passionate defense of her against on the curmudgeons who caused Hepler to cancel her Twitter account ring real hollow.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 février 2012 - 07:50 .

[thegoldfinch]

DragonRageGT wrote...

Thanks. I am a nice guy. An old nice guy. =)

What I meant is that the skip option doesn't just pop up when we first face a combat phase. We have to "earn" it (for lack of a better vocabulary), by at least trying to beat the combat before the Skip Button with the skip option is available to us. (never played L.A. Noire though... no consoles here)

A "skip button" as a first option is like a "God Mode" option available at Game Options Menu. It shouldn't happen. It is cheating. So, if people want to cheat their way out of a combat, it is ok. I understand that. I'll never respect that. But I understand that. Use a cheat command and it is done.

No need for developers to stop focusing on making the gameplay and combat more fun, challenging and rewarding because they might believe that most people won't go through it if they had a "skip button" available.

Then we're in agreement! In a game where combat is a significant part of the gameplay, such as Mass Effect, I feel that it would be silly to have an option to skip it entirely without having at least first tried. I appreciate what L.A. Noire did for people like me who could not control the freaking wibbly wobbly cars during a few of the chase scenes no matter how many times I gnawed on the controller in a fit of rage, is what I'm saying.

As I said in a post above, I believe the way Mass Effect 3 handled "skipping" works well: Have the story mode there as an option to allow players to breeze through combat without any stress so that they can focus on the story if they so desire. I wouldn't even be bothered if, in the story mode, a skip button prompt appeared if you failed a combat encounter. If that's what it takes to get more people to buy your crazy-expensive-to-develop game and it's not affecting the players who enjoy challenging combat in non-story mode, then who cares?

But a button to skip combat is still called a skip button. I will not let you have that! Never!

Modifié par pixieface, 24 février 2012 - 07:43 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Addai67 wrote...

I don't see how the negativity towards video games will help draw non-gamers to play.  More like reinforce the stereotypes.  If I was of that mindset and listened to Hepler's pitch, I'd probably ask why in the world I should pay $60 for a movie.

Neither Hepler, nor anyone, has an obligation to turn a personal interview into a sales pitch, or to praise how cool gaming is.

She was being interviewed about her personal gaming habits, likes and dislikes, from the perspective of someone who works in the industry. If the intent of the interview was to make a particular game seem attractive or to spruik the awesomeness of games to non-gamers that'd be an entirely different matter, but that wasn't the point in the case of Hepler's interview.

edit- Also, she is not knocking just the "manly" combat, but inventory and character creation and a lot of core RPG elements. This sounds like a whole different genre, maybe small-scale JRPG style games or something. 

Yes, I know. She'd allowed to dislike whatever she wants though, and she's not proposing these systems be dumped, although she is advocating player choice in how they enjoy their games.

The hero is still a fighter.

In a purely mechanical sense, true. Neither Diablo nor Dragon Age allow for characters with a lack of skills that can be used in combat, even from a position of support. That's by design. Personally I think combat is a staple of the fantasy genre; I'd hate to see it removed, though I also hate to see it abused. In any case, skipping a few tedious filler combats won't change the game's premise that your character is a fighter.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That's a failing of both games. Personally speaking anyway, as both games' combat can be approached almost exactly the same way almost all the time.

Which is why gameplay needs to be improved. So it provides a different experience.

It's a hard balance though, balancing the capabilities of AI combat and rigging special fights. I do believe DLCs like Mark of the Assassin improved the experience from what we got in DA2.

But, to get back to the original issue, if the combat is a random encounter and unimportant in the scheme of things, from a story perspective it's skippable.

Now, I wouldn't be adverse to skipping gameplay only becoming available if you failed a certain amount of times, a la The Simpsons Hit and Run. At the Game Over menu, you'd see the option to skip the current section of gameplay and move to the next.

Nor would I, but it's beside the point if we're not talking about a player's skill.

you don't have to, but I think it's a valid concern for me to have.

Hrm. I think it's unfounded, but sure, it's valid.

I didn't mean so much that you'd lose out on loot all the time if you used such a feature, but more so that you'd miss out on specifically designed quests like Tranquility.

How so? You'd still get to meet Anders, go to the Chantry, meet Karl and get ambushed.

Or are you assuming that a 'skip combat' feature would be like a mode where no combat exists at all? That's not what's being proposed. The suggestion is a basic kill button, where you can skip combat once it starts ingame. That way you still know you've been attacked and the context is there for gameplay purposes, if required...it's just over a lot quicker.

You misunderstand methinks. When I say you can easily plow through the game, I mean that ou could just spam the feature and skip all combat.

Well, yes, you could. But so what? Even though I'd never do that (the first run, anyway), if I did it would have no impact on your game, would it?

Which ends up defeating the purpose of leveling up and skill selection for those players that use it, because every fight becomes winnable no matter what.

But every fight is already winnable no matter what That's what Easy mode is for! XD

And at present, looking at DA2's system, levelling and skill selection will only matter to people who like combat! Noncombatants have no reason to care.

Sadly, this is indeed the case. It's just mindless combat that exists purely to take up time, instead of really providing a challenge.

Challenge is good. Meshing combat and story somehow would be better.

(Ok, that's enough for one day. Night all.)

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 24 février 2012 - 08:26 .

[batlin]

pixieface wrote...

You can't compare removing the gameplay from chess to removing the combat from a video game. In the game of chess all you have is chess. In a game, there are multiple facets that draw in an audience that do not involve combat, like story, characters, exploration, and role playing. I said that your analogy is faulty because these two things are not analogous.

Story, characters and exploration you can get from a movie or a book. Role-playing you can get from LARP. A game is exactly this: A form of play or sport played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. I'm sorry, but the presence of a story in a game is strictly ancillary. It's great that games have developed to the point where you can have a story with characters and such, but a story and characters do not a game make. Sorry to ****** on your bonfire, but if all you want is a story, character arcs and role-play, perhaps you should look for an online World of Darkness group.

Semantics. You get personal satisfaction from overcoming difficult combat and beating records, while you may view story elements as a meaningless but pretty bow that gets in the way of your combat. Another person gets satisfaction from participating in the story and making decisions, while they see the combat as this annoying thing in their way of being involved in the game world.

They are both valid experiences. They both pertain to the way games are made today. And no where did I say anything about watching a cutscene being the story elements I was referring to. I don't like cut scenes either.

No, not semantics. Personal satisfaction is something you get from accomplishment. This isn't up for debate, because you objectively accomplish nothing by skipping the part of the game that requires an amount skill. I'm positive that one can derive satisfaction without overcoming a challenge. I never said or argued otherwise. But the satisfaction of watching a story unfold, again, can be found in several other mediums that are not video games.

Barely qualified as a game to you. It is still a video game. It is still marketed as such. It is still sold as such. You are controlling a character on screen while solving puzzles, fulfilling quest objectives, exploring L.A., and shooting dudes. Sounds like a game to me. Part of the appeal of L.A. Noire was finding clues, inspecting a scene of a crime, interrogating suspects, putting together a puzzle of whodunnit, and being involved in the "feel" of old L.A. as a police officer, which meant car chases, on-foot chases, and shoot-outs.

You simply cannot do that just watching L.A. Confidential. You cannot be a tangible part of a foreign world and help solve crimes by watching a movie. You can feel this vicariously through the magic of imagination or fanfiction or what have you, but only video games offer an avenue of interactivity that you cannot get anywhere else.

Just because you did not like the game does not make it invalid as a game.

First, I never said it wasn't a game. I said it was barely a game on the grounds that there are few elements to it that actually require skill and there is no way to lose.

Second, being marketed as something doesn't necessarily mean that that is what it is.

Third, if you want to be a tangible part of the world, guess what? You aren't in L.A. Noire. Because again, no matter what you do, no matter how badly you screw up, nothing in the game changes and you will win regardless. All the gameplay serves to do is prolong the narrative; not to create a challenge or create a multitude of experiences in each playthough, no, it's a movie where every once in awhile you must accomplish some menial task. At least L.A. Confidential is better paced and has better acting. But again, enough about L.A. Noire.

I have a passion for compelling stories and it is BioWare that, currently, does it best.  I also enjoy the challenge of combat. There is no where else for me to go to find what I am seeking. But I can understand how someone who is drawn to the stories, the interactivity, and the immersion like me but does not enjoy combat, is not good at combat, or does not have the time for it would appreciate a skip button.

Let me make this very clear: I understand very, very well that someone could enjoy immersion and story over gameplay (yes, GAMEPLAY, combat is merely the form it takes in Dragon Age. If someone doesn't like combat and would rather watch the story, why would that be different in, say, a puzzle game?). What I do not understand is why they would want to play a game, meaning a form of media that involves challenge and skill, as opposed to other forms of media that tell a story without challenge or skill. Interactivity? Get a CYOA novel.

Why should it bother you if a skip button is optional? They are not taking away anything from you or me by including this.

Because when you make that option available, it ties developers' hands behind their back with what they can do with the combat. Let's use your Bastion example. I love Bastion as well. There's so much interesting exposition that is divulged throughout the simple gameplay. Now say that BioWare wants to have a section that is vital to the plot, and involves the character being in mid-combat as it unfolds much like it happens in Bastion. Well, looks like they can't do it, because they have to accomodate for those players who want to skip all that boring combat nonsense. it makes it impossible for the developer to integrate the gameplay into the story when you cleave the two elements apart from one another in order to categorize play styles. Is this making ANY sense to you at all?

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to include a story mode, such as what BioWare is doing for Mass Effect 3, but offer extra rewards for the people who put in the effort to surmount different combat challenges. People who enjoy combat would still get the prestige of overcoming a challenge and those who enjoy participating in a story don't have to bother with trophies or what have you, and they can just enjoy what they want to enjoy. Maybe the extra rewards would entice those who are not good at combat to practice and get better in order to earn those rewards, which could potentially increase the hardcore gamer population with time and exposure. Who knows!

And the story itself isn't enticement enough to learn how to play well because...

He has also milked billions (with a "b") of dollars out of consumers with sub-par products while displaying a frankly shocking irreverence for gamers and encouraging an atmosphere of mediocrity and imitation in place of ingenuity and creativity. But hold the phone, ladies and gents, here comes a writer that some feel is sub-par! Sub-par! Oh, my. Someone call da police.

There's no contest here for "who is most what is wrong with gaming", but let's draw some parallels between him and Hepler, shall we?

Sub-par products? Well, that parallel makes itself, doesn't it? Luckily Hepler only has so much control in BioWare.

irreverence for gamers? Like Hepler wants less of absolutely everything in RPGs besides her stories?

Encouraging mediocrity and imitation in place of ingenuity or creativity? I think SW:TOR did that well enough on its own lolololol

I think it's clear what is wrong with gaming. Appealing to the masses at the expense of quality. That's effectively what they both want.

Modifié par batlin, 24 février 2012 - 08:54 .

[Zorada]

I dont get it, no i really dont. What is the issue here?

Ok so she said she didnt like the combat in games and i for one would have to say she is entitled to her opinion like we all are. Does it mean that she helps to make games worse because of this? no id say not. If shes a writer then that is her role not a combat tech.

I think she is very wrong in saying women dont like combat however as i know many many woemn who kick backside in videogames in comat my wife being one of them. She spoke really for herself but the mistake she made was making it look like the whole of womanhood thought the same and thats just plain silly.

If she wishes to skip the combat parts of the game then i do not really see that its such a bad thing for her, for others we would rather not. Is it not true that most games these days try to cater for all tastes? therefore why couldnt this feature be included in games after all it is the player that determines what they do in a good well put together game. If you were forced to skip id have a problem with it but she never said that.

Also look at games historicly, Text based adventures were once the norm, LOTR being a massive hit, combat in these was just typing something like swing axe at ogre or something like this. There was not massive combat and the story really was the game. These games proved very popular back in the day and i never heard people complaining there wasnt combat in them. True games have moved on but really is what she saying that far removed from how they were.
I still believe that games like Elite with its wireframe graphics are still relevent today because of the sheer story telling and amount you can do in them. Would we say now that this game is just plain bad because the graphics are wireframe?. Some would but thats just it, we all have our own interpritation of what a game should be like dont we,

The games community has changed alot over the years and i have come to see it as a nagative now, times were different at the start where games companies would be shut away and not rerally interact with their fan base but now they have open discussion with them. Not a bad thing in itself but when you have certain elements of the gaming community who job as they see it being one of utter destruction and mayhem then it is very nagative.

Do not loose sight of the fact however we are all different and we all get something out of games personally. i hate console games for instance i really do, i think of most of them as dumbed down versions of pc games in many ways. Racing games are just not the same for me than their pc counterparts. This is my opinion and the fact that i would in the main be using a controller to action that game means i am deffinatly not like them. Am i saying all console games are bad? no far from it after all how would i know i do not play them anymore ever. I have a xbox elite sitting in my computer room thats never been switched on that i got free. There are millions of people that play console games and love them and who am i to say they are wrong. Put it back the other way who are they to say i am wong in only playing pc games.

This is the thing allow others to see in games what they want dont force your views on others making everything being about you and what you think with little or no thought for others. IF she wants in reality a text based adventure with no combat but nice graphics then why shouldnt she have it. If there are as she thinks enough people like her who would enjoy games more like this then let them have their jump feature. It doesnt matter to me because ill be fighting my backside off in the bits she misses. It seems to me both parts have a place in games its up to the user to decide which partts they wish to partake in.

After all dont they make games for people to enjoy?

[wangxiuming]

There are a few things I want to say, some in response to what batlin has brought up:

1. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that stories being ancillary to games is not true. At least, not for everybody. Stories make and break games for me; they are an integral part of the experience. I have no desire to play any game without a story. It's the reason why I only play RPGs, and it's the reason why I have grown to love Bioware, because they put an emphasis on storytelling in their games.

Whether you agree with me on that or not, there's no denying that there is a market for people hungry for story-heavy games.

2. A CYOA novel does not have the level of interactivity as a game such as the RPGs developed by Bioware. CYOA novels give you a few preset paths for you to read. But games such as Dragon Age and Mass Effect react to your choices beyond a mere "go to page XX." The sheer scope is on a completely different scale.

Not to mention the fact that games provide interactivity in a visual and auditory medium. Novels rely on your imagination, but games allow you to watch your choices unfold in real time on screen. It's just not the same experience; you can not substitute a CYOA novel for a Bioware RPG's interactivity.

3. Lastly, I just want to say I don't think you can tell someone how to enjoy a game. If they enjoy a game in a different way than you do, you can't tell them they're playing the game "wrong."

Well, you can, but it's a little like saying "You don't like the same flavor of ice cream as I do, you're eating ice cream wrong."

People enjoy games for different reasons. Sometimes people enjoy the same games for different reasons. It doesn't make anybody right or wrong. Can you imagine someone coming to you and telling you that the way you derive entertainment from something that you purchased, you own, and you enjoy is not the right way?

What gives them the right to dictate how you choose to spend your time?

And I will conclude this post on that sentiment before I veer totally off topic.

Edit: Blurgh, why does BSN format my posts all weird.

Modifié par wangxiuming, 24 février 2012 - 10:00 .

[batlin]

wangxiuming wrote...

There are a few things I want to say, some in response to what batlin has brought up:

1. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that stories being ancillary to games is not true. At least, not for everybody. Stories make and break games for me; they are an integral part of the experience. I have no desire to play any game without a story. It's the reason why I only play RPGs, and it's the reason why I have grown to love Bioware, because they put an emphasis on storytelling in their games.

Whether you agree with me on that or not, there's no denying that there is a market for people hungry for story-heavy games.

I don't think you know what "ancillary" means. Yes, there are a great many things apart from the gameplay itself that can make or break a game and that people care about to differing degrees, but that doesn't change the fact that those things are just that: apart from the gameplay. A game can still be a game without a story. A game cannot be a game without the elements of it that create challenge and demand skill.

2. A CYOA novel does not have the level of interactivity as a game such as the RPGs developed by Bioware. CYOA novels give you a few preset paths for you to read. But games such as Dragon Age and Mass Effect react to your choices beyond a mere "go to page XX." The sheer scope is on a completely different scale.

Not to mention the fact that games provide interactivity in a visual and auditory medium. Novels rely on your imagination, but games allow you to watch your choices unfold in real time on screen. It's just not the same experience; you can not substitute a CYOA novel for a Bioware RPG's interactivity.

I also presented LARPing as an alternative if one wants to forego gameplay. or Second Life for those who don't want to spend money on colorful costumes and elf ears. Also there's a "game" called Dear Esther on Steam that is pretty much exactly what Hepler seems to want.

3. Lastly, I just want to say I don't think you can tell someone how to enjoy a game. If they enjoy a game in a different way than you do, you can't tell them they're playing the game "wrong."

Well, you can, but it's a little like saying "You don't like the same flavor of ice cream as I do, you're eating ice cream wrong."

People enjoy games for different reasons. Sometimes people enjoy the same games for different reasons. It doesn't make anybody right or wrong. Can you imagine someone coming to you and telling you that the way you derive entertainment from something that you purchased, you own, and you enjoy is not the right way?

What gives them the right to dictate how you choose to spend your time?

I never told anyone how to enjoy a game or that they are wrong for preferring one element of a game over another. Only that if they want to play a game without any elements a game has, that they would enjoy other mediums more. I'm only going by the opinions they themselves present.

Modifié par batlin, 24 février 2012 - 10:33 .

[Plaintiff]

This is a stupid argument.

Jennifer Hepler's desire for such a function is one of pure practicality. Her main concern, personally and professionally, is with the plot and characters. She wants to be able to enjoy the work she's written, and the work that her colleagues have written. She wants to keep up with what her contemporaries in competing companies are doing. She wants to fit this stuff in around her other personal commitments.

The only "purpose" of a game is to be entertaining. If Hepler wants an option to skip combat, if that would make the game more entertaining for her, then why shouldn't she have one? You don't have to use it if you don't want to. It's the same as having subtitles, or a "hide helmet" toggle. It's entirely her choice.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a game purely for the story. That's absolutely the main, if not only reason why I play games at all. Plenty of games allow players to skip elements they find difficult or tedious. Most allow you to skip cutscenes, L.A. Noire allows you to skip the dull and tedious process of driving to crimescenes. If Dragon Age were to add an option to skip combat, how could it possibly impact you, or anyone else? It's complete non-issue.

[thegoldfinch]

batlin wrote...

Story, characters and exploration you can get from a movie or a book. Role-playing you can get from LARP. A game is exactly this: A form of play or sport played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. I'm sorry, but the presence of a story in a game is strictly ancillary. It's great that games have developed to the point where you can have a story with characters and such, but a story and characters do not a game make. Sorry to ****** on your bonfire, but if all you want is a story, character arcs and role-play, perhaps you should look for an online World of Darkness group

[snip]

Alright. Cool.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with you now because I see where this is going. I would refute all of your points and then you would refute all of mine and we would fall into an endless hate spiral of BUT JUST LIKE LISTEN TO ME FOR A SECOND U DUMMY OK LOL and neither one of us will budge.

The real problem is that we very clearly have different ideas on what a video game actually is and is not, and what a game could aspire to be, and what kind of audience games can potentially reach. We're debating opinions. It's a lose-lose battle.

So: I don't think it's a terrible idea for games to have a super easy mode or an optional skip function when appropriate in order to accomodate a wider audience. You think that the people who would use these functions should watch a movie or play tabletop games instead because video games are about fighting and all that entails. I think people can feel a great deal of accomplishment from solving character driven or plot driven story problems while doing very easy combat or no combat - and that not everyone actually seeks the same things from games, including the personal satisfaction feeling you describe from overcoming difficult combat. You don't think people can feel the same sense of accomplishment and self-worth from doing story focused challenges, and that games, at their best, deliver on this feeling of personal satisfaction.

I get it. That's fine. This is fine. We're all fine here, right? I'm fine! Hooray internet!

I'm not going to comment on the hatred for Jennifer because I'm preeeetty sure I'm just being trolled on that point.