146 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Agreed. I would never prefer Bioware cut back on their dialogue. Conversations that only give you one or two sentence answers, every time, are realistic, but hardly do much to enhance a world perspective or develop a relationship with an NPC.

We have spent decades of our lives existing in and learning the rules, norms, cultures and history of our world. We have spent years making good friends, people with who we have forged a true connection and are able to share personal thoughts and moments with. Video game writers have only a window of a few dozen hours to breathe life into a world and make us connect and care about characters. So well-written, expositionary dialogue isn't just a necessary evil, it's the tool of choice to get gamers to live in the world that is created, unrealistic though it may be.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Honestly, you want all story and no combat - play the Sims, it isn't hard to make Sims look like DA characters. As it is we have Casual mode and the ESC key to let us either fly through combat or skip dialogue - that's enough of that.

[GithCheater]

Gamers should be forced to always fully experience cut scenes, dialog, codexes and other walls of text or verbage. An RPG requires more "role" and less "playing" for it to be considered a "game". All Bioware product must be fully experienced without an OPTION to skip combat. Casual gamers should never be pandered or tolerated.

If all a casual gamer wants is combat action, then they should go play freakin' pinball.

Sincerely,

A real, true Bioware aficianado

[Imrahil_]

Several people have mentioned previous games that have an "AutoResolve" combat feature. This is entirely different than a "Skip Combat" feature.

In games like Total War or Heroes of Might & Magic, your armies still fight. There are consequences to choosing this option. You'll still only win if your army is superior to the opponent's army. You don't auto-win no matter what. You suffer losses. There are consequences.

If your army decimates the opponent with minimal-to-no losses, you had to build up your army to where it would dominate a small opposing force. And you still might lose a few troops, or use up finite resources. There are consequences to using AutoResolve. It's a *totally* different concept.

You had to work for it, essentially, to make it a viable option. You hit that button when you're overwhlemed, you still lose.

The "Skip Combat" idea means you didn't work for it, you just win regardless. You don't lose anything. You don't even risk anything. You don't chug any potions. You don't use limited-use items. No one dies or is injured. Injury kits mean less, Potions mean less. Which means you have more gold to spend & you also access "hard" areas earlier, 'cause you don't factor in the guardians, so the designers need to consider that low-level parties may be in high-level areas.

There is value to having areas closed off because the enemies are too strong to face yet. There is also value to being so ingenious at combat that you can overcome those odds via your tactical skill that you can access those rewards earlier. "Skip Combat" removes this distinction.

Without "Skip Combat", games can have areas that are "closed off" until the party can break in. Also, there can be combats where someone interferes. There can be combats where the opponent surrenders. There can be combats where the party loses! There can be combats where who you choose to save matters. There can be combats where which NPC's surivive matters.

"Skip Combat" is one of the worst ideas I've heard for an RPG.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 29 février 2012 - 06:15 .

[Morroian]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Several people have mentioned previous games that have an "AutoResolve" combat feature. This is entirely different than a "Skip Combat" feature.
[...]
"Skip Combat" is one of the worst ideas I've heard for an RPG.

None of this can happen with "Skip Combat", really.

Nothing anybody has said about having a skip combat button, even Jennifer Hepler, would discount it being implemented as an auto resolve button.

[Fast Jimmy]

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

Several people have mentioned previous games that have an "AutoResolve" combat feature. This is entirely different than a "Skip Combat" feature.
[...]
"Skip Combat" is one of the worst ideas I've heard for an RPG.

None of this can happen with "Skip Combat", really.

Nothing anybody has said about having a skip combat button, even Jennifer Hepler, would discount it being implemented as an auto resolve button.

Since the DA games don't have many examples of good story and gameplay integration, I'll give an example of another Bioware game where a Skip Button or an auto-resolve solution would hamper or completely prevent the interaction as it was designed.

In ME1, on the Feros colony mission, at the end, the entire colony becomes mind controlled and begins attacking you and your party. You can shoot and kill them, which REALLY kills them, or you can use specialized grenades to knock them out while you eliminate the source of the mind control. This is not a small section of the colony, but literally every single person there, all of which go by names (not just mind-controlled colonist 23), so you KNOW who you are killing.

The grenades are VERY limited and their radius is rather small, meaning that unless you place, time and land every grenade perfectly, you are not going to be able to save every colonist. In addition, there are truly mindless husks which are not human that are attacking you at the same time, meaning you have to switch combat tactics mid-fight in order to properly handle the possessed/mindless husk enemies coming at you.

Needless to say, the situation is a little difficult (BUT doable) to save everyone. As an added aside, killing colonists adds Renegade (evil-ish) karmic points, while saving them adds Paradon (good) karmic points.

This is an excellent example of how gameplay (combat) decisions and behavior influenced story (being able to later talk to individual NPCs you saved and hear their thanks for, you know, being alive and not brain washed anymore). But how would an auto-resolve button handle this?

Would it kill all the colonists, since that is the "most likely" situation, if the player had the least amount of skill? Would it say some were saved and some were killed, varying on the players stats? Or their previous karmic choices? Would it save all the colonists, since that gives the best "story" option, where you can follow up with all the colonists and hear their thanks later? What if the Auto Skipper wants to play a "bad" player, and thinks that killing all the colonists would be better for their story? 

I could keep going with all the things that would need to be addressed that would make gameplay and story desegregation harder and more effort to do than it already is (which, given the small amount of content that is done already, means even LESS will be done in the future with more obstacles preventing it). Which makes the divide between gameplay and story a larger gap and, in my opinion, makes the game as a whole worse.

[esper]

@Fast Kimmy, Obvious if you skip that specific battle in ME you just default to have most of the colonist killed since it would euqal skipping through dialog and missing vital information.

[Fast Jimmy]

esper wrote...

@Fast Kimmy, Obvious if you skip that specific battle in ME you just default to have most of the colonist killed since it would euqal skipping through dialog and missing vital information.

Many story-only fans would hate that, that they were given a "bad" resolution because they didn't want to deal with "stupid combat." 

Why would pandering to them to create a Skip Button not result in Bioware pandering to them to give them the best possible option when using the Skip Button? Otherwise, Bioware is being a bully developer and "making" them go through combat/gameplay to get the outcome they wanted. Which is not friendly to the casual/busy gamer, Esper.

[Mr Fixit]

Nice example, Fast Jimmy. One can only hope for BioWare to implement more such integrated sequences in the future games.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Great example, Jimmy. It actually spoke to a point that I made earlier (back in the first page of the thread).

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.

[Fast Jimmy]

^CrustyBot

Exactly. Bioware is increasingly only giving us options to SAY our choices or decisions, not actually DO them. It's easy to talk the talk, but to also have the grit to stick with it and choose a harder or more penalty-laden road to do the 'right' thing? That's actual morality there. More than just choosing a Diplomatic/Snarky/Aggressive dialogue option.

[batlin]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I doubt anyone but Indie developers and Kickstarter projects backed by genre legends will get away with returning to old-school roots and still make money out of it, because the big publishing houses aren't interested.

You mean besides Dragon Age: Origins?

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

esper wrote...

@Fast Kimmy, Obvious if you skip that specific battle in ME you just default to have most of the colonist killed since it would euqal skipping through dialog and missing vital information.

Many story-only fans would hate that, that they were given a "bad" resolution because they didn't want to deal with "stupid combat." 

Why would pandering to them to create a Skip Button not result in Bioware pandering to them to give them the best possible option when using the Skip Button? Otherwise, Bioware is being a bully developer and "making" them go through combat/gameplay to get the outcome they wanted. Which is not friendly to the casual/busy gamer, Esper.

Then they would have to go through that combat, and still be able to skip the rest. or if it is an auto-combat pause change weapon and click on the intended target.

ME and DA are about action and story.
If the casual/busy gamer can't understand that. There is nothing on earth, short if getting ride of the action part of action and story that will appease them.
So my answer to them would be  “you are not much good to me alive, are you boy, punish him for me Erold” or any other brick-top quote for that matter.
 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 29 février 2012 - 03:17 .

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

esper wrote...

@Fast Kimmy, Obvious if you skip that specific battle in ME you just default to have most of the colonist killed since it would euqal skipping through dialog and missing vital information.

Many story-only fans would hate that, that they were given a "bad" resolution because they didn't want to deal with "stupid combat." 

Why would pandering to them to create a Skip Button not result in Bioware pandering to them to give them the best possible option when using the Skip Button? Otherwise, Bioware is being a bully developer and "making" them go through combat/gameplay to get the outcome they wanted. Which is not friendly to the casual/busy gamer, Esper.

But I just equalled it to going skipping through dialog and also coddexes. If you skip through dialog and codex you do not get all information and perhaps not even all quest (Ie, companion quest and codex related quest,b ecause you won't know they exist), if you skip through combat you might not be able to save someone minor such as civilians in this case neither thing relates to the major story lines or the endings which you can still get all off, so it is in my opinion fair enough.

[Fast Jimmy]

esper wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

esper wrote...

@Fast Kimmy, Obvious if you skip that specific battle in ME you just default to have most of the colonist killed since it would euqal skipping through dialog and missing vital information.

Many story-only fans would hate that, that they were given a "bad" resolution because they didn't want to deal with "stupid combat." 

Why would pandering to them to create a Skip Button not result in Bioware pandering to them to give them the best possible option when using the Skip Button? Otherwise, Bioware is being a bully developer and "making" them go through combat/gameplay to get the outcome they wanted. Which is not friendly to the casual/busy gamer, Esper.

But I just equalled it to going skipping through dialog and also coddexes. If you skip through dialog and codex you do not get all information and perhaps not even all quest (Ie, companion quest and codex related quest,b ecause you won't know they exist), if you skip through combat you might not be able to save someone minor such as civilians in this case neither thing relates to the major story lines or the endings which you can still get all off, so it is in my opinion fair enough.

I don't disagree that it is FAIR. But the implementation of a Skip Button is not about being fair. It's about  accommodating a busy, casual gamer to make the experience more palpable for them... So they buy the game. 

If a casual gamer isn't given the option to have the best possible story through their desired form of gameplay (which is to skip any of the gameplay they don't like), then they won't play (or buy) the game. It's about best story for the most convenience. And sales, of course.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 mars 2012 - 02:23 .

[FedericoV]

I'm completely against story/gameplay segregation. I believe the opposite principle: gameplay and story are one and the same in every game, especially in a videogame.

Gameplay is the most powerfull storytelling tool that videogames have. And it's what sets apart videogames from passive media. Gameplay tells a lot of things about your charachter (and your companions). It speaks volumes about personality, choices and comradery.

Who's Kratos without gameplay? Who's Ezio or Altair without gameplay? They are no one. Gameplay is the most intuitive and easier forms of the "show don't tell" narrative principle.

I agree that gameplay should not be only about combat, but that's the dev choice at the end. Videogames (especially CRPGs) could implement a lot of different forms of gameplay (stealth, diplomacy, etc.) but unfortunately most developers choose the easier path: combat is the simpler and most immediate form of gameplay and so they pump game lenght abusing it.

Having said all of that, I have nothing against an optional "graphic novel" mode that focus only on choices (wich is not the sum of roleplaying!) and cinematics, that you can unlock once you finished the game once. Just to see the different branches without having to do all the combat again.

Pretty pointless in a Bioware game since branching is not so significative, but to each is own.

Modifié par FedericoV, 02 mars 2012 - 07:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

FedericoV wrote...

I'm completely against story/gameplay segregation. I believe the opposite principle: gameplay and story are one and the same in every game, especially in a videogame.

Gameplay is the most powerfull storytelling tool that videogames have. And it's what sets apart videogames from passive media. Gameplay tells a lot of things about your charachter (and your companions). It speaks volumes about personality, choices and comradery.

Who's Kratos without gameplay? Who's Ezio or Altair without gameplay? They are no one. Gameplay is the most intuitive and easier forms of the "show don't tell" narrative principle.

I agree that gameplay should not be only about combat, but that's the dev choice at the end. Videogames (especially CRPGs) could implement a lot of different forms of gameplay (stealth, diplomacy, etc.) but unfortunately most developers choose the easier path: combat is the simpler and most immediate form of gameplay and so they pump game lenght abusing it.

Having said all of that, I have nothing against an optional "graphic novel" mode that focus only on choices (wich is not the sum of roleplaying!) and cinematics, that you can unlock once you finished the game once. Just to see the different branches without having to do all the combat again.

Pretty pointless in a Bioware game since branching is not so significative, but to each is own.

I think the graphic novel, even if its only offered after a first playthrough, is almost as dangerous as the Skip Button. It still makes it so the developers are looking at choices and gameplay as totally separate. Again, if my only choices come from a dialogue selection, then that's not gameplay and story integration. And the only way a graphic novel could "skip to the decisions" would have decisions only be decided in that manner.

I don't see a way to do a graphic novel approach that let's you make a decision in combat that affects the story, for instance. If in the middle of a fight, shooting X character first instead of Y character can't change the story, even slightly, then it is segregated.

[FedericoV]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the graphic novel, even if its only offered after a first playthrough, is almost as dangerous as the Skip Button. It still makes it so the developers are looking at choices and gameplay as totally separate. Again, if my only choices come from a dialogue selection, then that's not gameplay and story integration. And the only way a graphic novel could "skip to the decisions" would have decisions only be decided in that manner.

I don't see a way to do a graphic novel approach that let's you make a decision in combat that affects the story, for instance. If in the middle of a fight, shooting X character first instead of Y character can't change the story, even slightly, then it is segregated.

I don't know, maybe you are right but I make an example. I would have loved to replay TW2 a second time to  support the elves and avoid the final confrontation with the antagonist but after I finished it once (on hard) I had no time or passion to play it again and see the different permutations (even because I hated the combat in TW2).

So I watched it on youtube. What's the difference with the graphic novel approach?

I don't think that devs would fall in the trap of considering choices and gameplay different things because of my proposal  and I consider it a reasonable compromise. Even because there is no way to separate choices and gameplay if not artificially.

The best games will allways be the ones the integrates the various aspects (story, gameplay and art) in the most efficient and organic way. Just to say: if devs separate them (and it seems impossible to me considering the reality of game design as a collaborative media) it would be to the detriment of the quality of their products.

For example, on of the greatest problem of DA2 (as pointed out by the Rock, Paper, Shotgun review if I remember correctly) was the "disconnect" effect between the gory and juvenile combat, the sensible and overdramatic story/choices and the jrpg-ish/exotic art. Maybe, taken in themeselves, these element were even good. Unfortunately they do not relate to each other at all and as a player you find yourself wondering what are you playing at.

On the other hand, yesterday I replayed Limbo for the 3rd time. That's a game that mix perfectly art, gameplay and story. And while being indie and only worth 4 hours is superior to DA2 on any level.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[TEWR]

Who's Kratos without gameplay

Some poor schmuck having a hard time assimilating into society

To be serious, I'm going to read these 3 pages to get a good idea of what's being discussed so I can give my two cents on the matter.

Chances are, I will know not of what I speak.

[FedericoV]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Who's Kratos without gameplay

Some poor schmuck having a hard time assimilating into society

You should finish GoW3. There is even a more human and tender side to Kratos. Unfortunately he does not know how to express his feelings without killing someone.

[TEWR]

Oh I've played and finished GoW3. I do like Kratos' more human and less savage side, when it comes to light.

Which isn't often, but still.

CrustyBot said...

Sometimes the gameplay is the story, especially from the player's perspective.

Addressing this one sentence for now, but this sounds a lot like what I said on the old thread. I said that for me the gameplay was a facet of my roleplaying.

Now, it wasn't anything like Redcliffe where I have to determine "Should I save Lloyd or let him die? He is a fat, lazy, useless slob. But.... he might earn some respect if he lives", but more like how I took down enemies.

Did Xanthos Aeducan charge headlong into battle, slaughtering all Darkspawn in his wake? Or did he rely solely on bombs and poisons? So on and so forth. Even if combat wasn't my cup of tea because I didn't find it tactical, I could still try and roleplay him how I wanted.

===============================================================

I'd like to see gameplay -- specifically but not solely combat -- be improved in the future. Hopefully this is pertinent to the thread.

One of the biggest examples that comes to mind is MotA's stealth. The devs have gone on record saying that it was just an experiment at improving the stealth aspect, and I agree that was all that could really be done for that. It's more realistic though, even if it's not entirely realistic in its design.

But I've found that the stealth is just.... not quite up to snuff. Again, it's due to the experimental nature which the devs have acknowledged.

If you're sneaking around the Chateau and you get caught, there is no consequence to that. You just start all over again. Given Mike Laidlaw's comments on the subject, it seems this will be something that will be addressed in future iterations where stealth is possible. And I hope it is addressed. Getting caught should mean you fail the stealth aspect and have to fight your way through, or maybe talk your way out of it, or something else.

I wish this mechanic had been implemented into the core game for say a Mage Underground quest chain -- people have seen my posts citing how I wanted that no doubt -- but c'est la vie.

In regards to Fast Jimmy's posts, well.... suffice to say I agree with him.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

As long as the gameplay and the story don't follow the same rules, then there already is a divide. That divide was stark in DA2, with the combat mechanics making a mockery of the setting.

As such, given that the game already assumes a divide, a skip button allows us to perceive the game without one. If we never see the combat, then we never need to know that the combat doesn't follow appropriate rules.

If BioWare abandoned gameplay/story segregation, then I would never use a skip button. But as long as the divide already exists I see no cost at all to the button's inclusion.

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As long as the gameplay and the story don't follow the same rules, then there already is a divide. That divide was stark in DA2, with the combat mechanics making a mockery of the setting.

.

Yes. Which is why I often say that DA2 is just a thinly veiled console platformer. With a movie on the side.

Sure people can say that they enjoy the combat play whatever. It's just as valid as when people enjoy the rather similar gameplay of console platformers. - Now, if one want a RPG though...

[Vaeliorin]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As long as the gameplay and the story don't follow the same rules, then there already is a divide. That divide was stark in DA2, with the combat mechanics making a mockery of the setting..

Yes. Which is why I often say that DA2 is just a thinly veiled console platformer. With a movie on the side.

Sure people can say that they enjoy the combat play whatever. It's just as valid as when people enjoy the rather similar gameplay of console platformers. - Now, if one want a RPG though...

Um...really?  As much as I'm not a fan of DA2's gameplay (mostly due to a lack of enemy diversity that renders it incredibly boring), it's absolutely nothing like a platformer, unless there were jumping puzzles I missed while playing it, which seems unlikely.

Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of the large divide between gameplay and story that exists in so many of today's games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I must admit I don't really see the platformer angle, either.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 mars 2012 - 12:55 .