288 réponses à ce sujet

[LeandroBraz]

I see this whole history as a stupid overreaction, it's not like they are doing this, it's just a personal commentary in an interview, a momentary sugestion that won't see the day light, and even if it do, it's not like we'll be forced to skip combat, is just a stupid optional button. People are doing all this noise for nothing.

Anyway, I see ME3 Narrative mode as a excellent solution. It's easy to understand the difference between the modes, and if you choose the narrative, you will have a really easy, fast combat. Is almost a skip button, but you still get gameplay between cutscenes and dialogs.

Modifié par LeandroBraz, 24 février 2012 - 11:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

People are getting hung up on the concept of skipping combat, so let's just take a step back for a second and see why the opinion of Ms. Hepler (and the presence of a Skip Button) is troubling to some.

Forget combat. In fact, forget Dragon Age altogether for a moment. Let's take a game like Grand Theft Auto. GTA IV, to be exact.

This game tells a great story, about a man's quest for freedom, success and redemption and is one of the best GTA stories told and a great game, all around. And, in GTA fashion, there are cheats. Lots and LOTS of cheats. Because sometimes? You just want to grab a few rocket launchers and start blowing up everything until the Five Star Wanted army comes into town.

However, that being said, there are STILL missions. Driving missions, fighting missions, missions where you pick up a certain amount of taxi fares in a given time frame, missions where you take girls out on dates... not all of it is the same, but a lot of it can be fairly difficult. But, despite being one of the most cheat-heavy franchises in gaming, there is no skip button. Why?

The answer is simple. The GTA franchise does a great job of introducing events and story elements during their gameplay. A mission that looks routine starting out could result in an ambush, a betrayal, the death of a close friend and the destruction of a location - ALL without a cut scene. Rockstar knew that if they let you skip every mission that was hard, then you'd miss all of these events and then the story would be confusing, since you had no idea what had happened.

GTA missions are not all combat. A lot of them are driving (gameplay element), shadowing or sneaking (gameplay element), collecting money by doing jobs (gameplay element) or exploring an open world (gameplay element).

So... a Skip Button, designed to skip over a portion of gameplay reduces the option for that gameplay to have anything of substance in it. It will be purely driving, purely sneaking, purely fighting, etc. If the player has the option to skip it every time, then what reason or motivation would designers have to make the gameplay and other parts of the game, such as story, more rich and intertwined?

Short answer - they would have none. Essentially, a Skip Combat button would reduce combat's role in a game to the point of a mini-game, where it makes it pointless NOT to skip it.

Now, if the designer's said "We plan on integrating story-telling and gameplay so fluidly that if you choose to skip combat, then you might miss some important plot pieces" that would defeat the whole purpose of the players who complain they don't want to deal with gameplay they don't like to get the story, so it would be a waste. So contemplating a Skip Button in a game means the Developers would be essentially coming out and saying "We are going to completely divorce gameplay elements like Combat from story."

And, if you are going to have to divorce gameplay elements from the story, instead of working to interweave them more seamlessly, then you just have an interactive story with mini-games. In which case, why not just make an interactive story with Tetris, or Pong? Because that's all you have diluted the gameplay element (in this case, combat) down to - a mini game.

I'm opposed to a Skip Button. Because I'd like the quality of gameplay (not just combat, but ALL gameplay) improved. A game can never be too fun or enjoyable, just like a story can never be too rich or engaging. I advocate blurring the lines between the two items, not creating an infinite divide between the two at the behest of those who don't like or don't have time to play video games.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 février 2012 - 01:19 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

That's a good reason to be against a skip button -- for combats that are sufficiently intertwined with story. When/if Bioware improves their games to this point, however, you can't tell me that all combats will have some cool story twist that render a skip button undesirable.

Sometimes random encounters are just that. The option to Autokill them will not doom combat and story to be Forever Alone.

[wangxiuming]

batlin wrote...

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.

You have your definition of game, and I have mine. I don't expect you to agree with my definition, but by the same token, you can't expect me to agree with yours either. That was my point.

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.

I didn't say that there are no alternatives to Bioware RPGs. I was saying they don't compare. LARPing, Second Life, Dear Esther ... these are activities/games with their own merits, but they are not substitutes for the immersion provided by a Bioware RPG. Nowhere else can you find worlds that are crafted with such care and detail, and where you're in as much control as you are when you're playing a Bioware RPG.

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.

This point was not directed at you, but I do think that insinuating people who prefer storytelling to combat should "enjoy other mediums" instead of playing RPGs is tantamount to telling them they're playing the game wrong. It's the same thing as saying, "I don't agree with how they enjoy the game, so they should go play these other things."

Let me ask a question. What are your thoughts on cheat codes, using the developer console, or modding games? These things often reduce challenge, sometimes completely so. And yet they have existed in videogames for as long as I can remember. Do you think people should be allowed to use cheat codes, the developer console, or mods if they want to?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To add to Fast Jimmy's post, this is especially important in RPGs, where a consistent player created character concept is at the core of the experience (because it's that character concept which determines your character's build, playstyle and "choices"). If one is to integrate narrative with gameplay, then skipping parts of it artificially removes options for the player to play as the character they've created. Sometimes the gameplay is the story, especially from the player's perspective.

In an ideal world, in an RPG with much less linear and more creative level/quest/character design, there ought to be different ways in which situations can be approached, not many of them forcing combat on you. If the problem is that there's too much (unavoidable) combat, then create a game with plenty of combat, but also ways to proceed without engaging in it (Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1/2, Bloodlines, Arcanum, etc).

(I guess you could play a non-combat party in games like Darklands if you focused on Saints/Religion/Virtue, Speak Common and Alchemy - I may actually try that out next.)

These ways would require you to utilize different aspects of your character's skillsets (diplomacy, intimidation, knowledge, subterfuge, stealth, guile, exploitation, maybe puzzles, etc) in order to get through certain challenges and leave a lot of the game's encounters as optional rather than compulsory (especially if they serve no narrative purpose). An example would be randomly spawning bandits as you run from location to location. Give players the option to bypass that with the skillsets of their characters rather than forcing them into it.

OTOH, arguing for a "skip x button" mechanic emphasizes a design that seeks to separate "gameplay" or "combat" and "story" into separate sections for the sake of a more structured (and easier to manage) experience. From a time/effort standpoint, why bother creating 6 ways to solve a problem with differing consequences depending on your actions and skillset when it's easier to create a corridor with areas and sections that can be skipped by the player, if both have the same desired effect?

If anyone has played the game Fallout: New Vegas, how would a quest such as Arizona Killer work out with a "skip combat" button? Depending on how the quest progresses and how you play, you may not even need to engage in combat. OTOH, you may do the opposite and make the entire area full of hostiles. You may even fail the quest, and depending on what happens, this could change future story events.

The way you play, the character you make, it's build, your playstyle, etc, directly affects what happens in the "story". Allowing people to "skip" it removes that interactivity. The ability for the player to take part in what goes on. This is even more apparent where specific and unique game mechanics (not just scenarios and quests) are built with such interactions in mind. For example, various morality mechanics. It only works without deteriment when the combat or gameplay in question is fundamentally inconsequential to the narrative or themes of the game or gameworld, which means such combat is filler and doesn't need to be present or mandatory at all.

I don't begrudge people for wanting a skip button, that in itself doesn't bother me. But what does bother me is the design philosophy it encourages, that the game ought to be segregated into sections that are "story oriented" and "gameplay oriented". It's just anathema to what narrative games ought to strive for - to integrate both in such a manner that takes full advantage of the medium rather than being a poor emulation of film or novels.

J E Sawyer made some comments almost a year ago and although they were in regards to tactical combat specifically, I felt were pertinent to the subject:

This will probably sound really bad, but I don't think most RPG designers actually think about gameplay -- especially not core gameplay. I think this is due to a few problems: first, some gamers (and even some game devs) view gameplay as a chore. They are quite vocal about wanting to pursue the story and characters more as a choose-your-own adventure novel than as an integral part of a role-playing game. Because of this, designers often focus on the creative aspects of RPGs to a fault -- essentially letting the core gameplay elements fall by the wayside. The result is, unsurprisingly, worse gameplay that even more players are loathe to engage.

If gameplay - in particular combat gameplay - is an issue for people, the first thought that comes to my mind is "shouldn't we improve it in a way that encourages good old fashioned roleplaying?" not "how can we skip it and get to the good stuff?"

Allowing players to skip it is only covers up the problem without solving it - too much necessary combat and/or unsatisfying gameplay.

Of course YMMV.

Then again, if the issue is wanting to see certain cinematics, wouldn't an option in the Main Menu allowing you to watch/interact in certain cinematics using a save file would work out just as well? It's been done before (though I'm not sure about interactive cinematics being done in such a manner). If skipping combat/gameplay is a fast foward button, it would be more like a Chapter function. So rather than go through an entire playthrough to see certain cinematics and interactions, you could literally "skip" to the specific ones you want.

edit: I also would not begrudge a people wanting a "Super Casual" setting which drops enemy HP, removes most of it's AI and generally makes things really easy. A difficulty setting is much better than a discrete mechanic which encourages a certain design philosophy.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 24 février 2012 - 03:17 .

[philippe willaume]

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!

Yes you are right. What the point of skipping combat in a combat game?
However the topic is skipping combats in a combat and story game.

Again if you force me to skip the combat or combat is abysmal because the player as the option to skip the combat, of course it is bad idea to have skip button.

But really as long as combat it still there and it is decent. of course people who want to use it can have a kill all enemies button. I can not really understand or relate to the concept of I am to busy to play or I don't like combat none the less I can see the usefulness of such a button for people that have completed the game and that can't stand the combat any longer (yes DA: 2 and DA: 0 there are a few people looking at you now).

Hence if people want to do that at the first play through, I would not do it myself, but well if that is what rock theirs boats. it is fine by me. You and I don't have to get aboard.
Phil

[Joy Divison]

I just want to say CrustyBot's post was the most well thought out thing I've read on these forums in a long time.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Joy Divison wrote...

I just want to say CrustyBot's post was the most well thought out thing I've read on these forums in a long time.

Thanks!

Considering how much I've been trolling the ME 3 forums recently, I figured I was due for something with substance.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 24 février 2012 - 03:00 .

[philippe willaume]

@ CrustyBot and fast Jmmy

Maybe I am a bit naïve, or may be I miss the point all together.
But I think Mr. Epler said it would be difficult to skip combat all together.

I take the skip button as being the equivalent of the console “killallennemies” is DA:0.
IE you are not skipping the combat all together you just resolve it instantly.
Ideally the way to do it would be to have a super narrative difficulty mode where the enemy have 1 hp (i.e. one hit and they are dead) and you do a finishing move on the boss.
You could even have an autopilot switch so that the player char is played as a companion.

Like that the company still has to deliver decent combat and there is a get-out-of-jail card for those who don’t want combat.
And because of that may be we can have more challenging and diverse combat at harder setting and not just they can act more often, do more damage have more armour and have more HP difficulty setting

phl

[Addai]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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.

She's allowed.  It just makes strange premises for someone who works for Bioware.  Unless Bioware isn't about making that kind of game anymore, which is the real critique behind /v/'s alarmist graffiti.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Agreed. If anything the game might just appeal to a few more people. My boss always complains that he never have enough time to play longer story-driven games because as a father of three he doesn't have the time to play through them, and he loves story-driven games. So he ends up starting them and then playing whenever he finds the time and eventually can't get into the games again because it's been such a long time since he played them. Then he asks me how everything played out. He just want's to see how the story and characters play out.

I'm curious to see how the Action/RPG/Story modes play out in ME3 and how they are received. Maybe they'll implement something like that for DA3.  

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

She's allowed.  It just makes strange premises for someone who works for Bioware.  Unless Bioware isn't about making that kind of game anymore, which is the real critique behind /v/'s alarmist graffiti.

It's not as if there's any sign of Bioware decreasing the amount of combat in their games.

Rather the opposite, DA2 seemed to have an unfortunate compulsion to slap combat everywhere, rather than breaking things up with the occasional quest that could be solved peacefully like we've seen in previous Bioware games.

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

She's allowed.  It just makes strange premises for someone who works for Bioware.  Unless Bioware isn't about making that kind of game anymore, which is the real critique behind /v/'s alarmist graffiti.

It's not as if there's any sign of Bioware decreasing the amount of combat in their games.

Rather the opposite, DA2 seemed to have an unfortunate compulsion to slap combat everywhere, rather than breaking things up with the occasional quest that could be solved peacefully like we've seen in previous Bioware games.

But again- we're not talking just about combat.  Rather about other RPG elements such as character creation, crafting, inventory (which is really about customization).

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

But again- we're not talking just about combat.  Rather about other RPG elements such as character creation, crafting, inventory (which is really about customization).

Well, character creation wasn't really simplified, even if I'd prefer we were given a few more points to invest to start off with.  Nor was inventory really - in DA:O it was generally a lot more obvious what was the best choice, and obvious when you should switch.   Whereas DA2 had swarms of silly little jewellery you had to handle with little to help you decide what's best, particularly since resistances were stupidly non-intuitive.

So, I think the evidence is that they don't really rely on Ms Hepler's views on gameplay issues.

(Though I do applaud their decision to effectively scrap crafting in DA2.  I'm pretty sure crafting is an infection from MMORPGs, because it really doesn't make much sense in single player RPGs.  The only thing resembling crafting I've encountered that wasn't nonsensical, boring or ludicrously overpowered was taking special items to be assembled by Cromwell in BG2)

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...
Well, character creation wasn't really simplified,

Yes it was.

 Nor was inventory really -

Yes it was.

All this goes under customization.
 

(Though I do applaud their decision to effectively scrap crafting in DA2. 

And it's my favorite part of games.

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Well, character creation wasn't really simplified,

Yes it was.

No it wasn't.  Building an effective character involves far more genuine decision in DA2 than DA:O.

 Nor was inventory really -

Yes it was.

All this goes under customization.

No it wasn't.  In DA:O, yes you got choice of armour for NPCs.  Though in practice there wasn't a huge armount, since it was pretty obvious what the good armours were.  But there were so few good accessories that there was basically never any real choice there.
 

And it's my favorite part of games.

If I ever want to play an alchemist or a blacksmith I'll fire up The Guild 1400 (or should it be The Sims Medieval these days?).  There it makes sense, and fits in with the rest of the game.  In a game about an adventuring hero all it does is screw up item acquisition, and it makes no sense because it relies on the assumption that you can out perform skilled craftsmen in your spare time.

[Meris]

Wulfram wrote...

and it makes no sense because it relies on the assumption that you can out perform skilled craftsmen in your spare time.

Don't be silly. The skills from DA:O are part of the hero's adventuring craft. Never wondered why a mage starts with herbalism or a dalish elf with survival?

What I think the dwarf poster means is that character creation was simplified from the point that skills, amongst which crafting, were removed from the game. Which isn't the same thing as when crafting itself was made more convenient.

I agree that disassociating skills from the player characters can be a cause for frustration: its essentially a removal of player agency in character creation and customization. But that crafting's streamlining, not in Dragon Age: crafting was never complicated, just a bit more of a chore than before.

Modifié par Meris, 24 février 2012 - 10:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

No it wasn't.  In DA:O, yes you got choice of armour for NPCs.  Though in practice there wasn't a huge armount, since it was pretty obvious what the good armours were.

The value there was in choosing the type of armour being used, not which specific armour within a given type.

You're falling into the trap of accepting BioWare's assumptions about how each character will be used.  You don't want to put Leliana in Massive Armour, so you assume no one will.  As such, removing the ability to do so costs you nothing.

But it costs those of us who do not accept those assumptions.  Depending how he is used, both Heavy Plate and Thief Leathers make sense for Fenris.  But DA2 won't let us choose.

It's not about choosing one leather armour versus another leather armour.  It's about choosing leather armour over some other type of armour.

[Meris]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

No it wasn't.  In DA:O, yes you got choice of armour for NPCs.  Though in practice there wasn't a huge armount, since it was pretty obvious what the good armours were.

The value there was in choosing the type of armour being used, not which specific armour within a given type.

You're falling into the trap of accepting BioWare's assumptions about how each character will be used.  You don't want to put Leliana in Massive Armour, so you assume no one will.  As such, removing the ability to do so costs you nothing.

But it costs those of us who do not accept those assumptions.  Depending how he is used, both Heavy Plate and Thief Leathers make sense for Fenris.  But DA2 won't let us choose.

It's not about choosing one leather armour versus another leather armour.  It's about choosing leather armour over some other type of armour.

But it does bring up the point that there's little variation within the assumed use of a character.

Modifié par Meris, 24 février 2012 - 10:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meris wrote...

But it does bring up the point that there's little variation within the assumed use of a character.

The assumed use should be irrelevant.  BioWare's shouldn't assume a use at all.

[Wulfram]

Meris wrote...

Don't be silly. The skills from DA:O are part of the hero's adventuring craft. Never wondered why a mage starts with herbalism or a dalish elf with survival?

A mage starts with herbalism for no good reason at all.  It's got nothing to do with magic.

You're a fighter and a hero, your job is to save the world.  It makes no sense at all for you to be huddled over a pot for hours on end while the darkspawn eat everyone because you prefer to make your own stuff rather than buying it from the experts

What I think the dwarf poster means is that character creation was simplified from the point that skills, amongst which crafting, were removed from the game. Which isn't the same thing as when crafting itself was made more convenient.

Skills were mostly irrelevant cruft, other than Coercion and Combat training.  Particularly if you had the sense to avoid the abomination of a crafting system.

Removing them didn't reduce complexity, it just removed a little bit of clicking.

Modifié par Wulfram, 24 février 2012 - 10:23 .

[Meris]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meris wrote...

But it does bring up the point that there's little variation within the assumed use of a character.

The assumed use should be irrelevant.  BioWare's shouldn't assume a use at all.

Wait, I meant that though DA:O allowed you to choose between different kinds of equipment, there's little choice within a given spectrum. Most of the time, you're comparing two pieces of equipment with similar gains, except one has more numbers.

A mage starts with herbalism for no good reason at all.  It's got nothing to do with magic.

Umm... maybe you've missed the many plants and minerals with magical properties that can be tapped alchemically for purposes of enchantment and the creation of magical potions? Magical salves? Lyrium? The crazy circle witch in the middle of a forest in Awakening? The Mage Laboratory in the circle tower? Wynne's conversations with Oghren about how the Tranquil mages often use the alchemical skills to produce masterful beverages?

You're a fighter and a hero, your job is to save the world.  It makes no sense at all for you to be huddled over a pot for hours on end while the darkspawn eat everyone because you prefer to make your own stuff rather than buying it from the experts

Considering the amount of time a given Warden will be travelling through the fereldan countryside, and that I very much doubt a masterful creator of potions and poisons live in every fereldan village, I'd say that restocking is rarely an option.

Modifié par Meris, 24 février 2012 - 10:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meris wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meris wrote...

But it does bring up the point that there's little variation within the assumed use of a character.

The assumed use should be irrelevant.  BioWare's shouldn't assume a use at all.

Wait, I meant that though DA:O allowed you to choose between different kinds of equipment, there's little choice within a given spectrum.

That's true, and it's unfortunate, but that was far from to extent of the armour choice available in DAO.

DA2 gave us armour choices very similar to the intra-spectrum options in DAO.  We had the ability to modify, slightly, the armour of Isabela and the rest of them, but we could make no fundamental changes.

DAO allowed those small incremental adjustments, but also allowed fundamental changes.

I want fundamental changes back.

[Wulfram]

A few people might have appreciated the option to make unusual armour choices, but in practice this option had little effect on most peoples games

(If they'd made medium armour not total crap, that might have made the issue more interesting)

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Well, character creation wasn't really simplified,

Yes it was.

No it wasn't.  Building an effective character involves far more genuine decision in DA2 than DA:O.

I don't even know what to say.

If I ever want to play an alchemist or a blacksmith I'll fire up The Guild 1400 (or should it be The Sims Medieval these days?).  There it makes sense, and fits in with the rest of the game.  In a game about an adventuring hero all it does is screw up item acquisition, and it makes no sense because it relies on the assumption that you can out perform skilled craftsmen in your spare time.

Sims, WTF?  It's part of character customization in addition to gameplay.  And maybe your character IS a skilled craftsman, if you want her to be.

I think we have such different ideas of what an RPG is that there's no point discussing it.  Seems that Bioware is making your sort of game, though.