Thanks for posting this Jimmy and I'm glad that the old thread was "un-deleted" or moved back here. I already wrote a post explaining my position which I wasn't willing to rewrite or paraphrase, though I did add to it (it's a tl;dr):
This (referring to gameplay/story integration) 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).
These ways would require you to utilize different aspects of your character's skillsets (diplomacy, intimidation, knowledge, subterfuge, stealth, guile, social 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 in say Dragon Age 2 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.
Some examples: interactions with Bandit Leaders that vary depending on your choices in the story - helping the Fereldens allows you to reach agreements with some Bandit groups or something. Ability to sneak past them through more open levels or by going in and out of houses (which you can then rob, enraging hostile home owners) that lead to different sections of the city. Allowing you to set traps and simply running past them altogether. Using magic or potions to trick them into fighting each other while your party waits in the shadows. And more. None of these are impossible to implement and greatly aid the roleplaying aspect of the game (as your character build and playstyle reinforce the character concept you make).
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 make/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 detriment 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 doesn't bother me and has no reason to 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" because it's simply easier to make. 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.
-------------
To add to that, I've seen some support for an auto-resolve button, as opposed to outright skipping. I can see the advantages of this, provided it doesn't deter from the roleplaying paradigm. That is to say, integrating both character and player skill into the equation.
Meaning, NPC Tactics/AI, aspects like Disposition and perhaps stats and talents focusing on Leadership, Tactical competency and the like (Cunning), as well as the consequences you'd expect from an actual battle (loss of consumable items, injuries, etc).
Things like status at the time of auto-resolve (hp, positioning) might also be pretty cool to integrate.
OTOH though, that sounds awfully complicated to add in without it being half-arsed. Seems much harder to implement well than simply having good RPG quest and character design.
Modifié par CrustyBot, 27 février 2012 - 06:40 .
Retour en haut
