146 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

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 brawler. With a movie on the side.

There, fixed with a more logical term.

[schalafi]

What I've done, when I don't want to do a particular quest, or combat, is to go to one of my previously played games, which I've kept in a Companion folder. I pick out the save that takes me past the part I'm tired of , or bored of playing, and insert it in my current game. For example, I just can't play another "Blackpowder Courtesy" quest, so I skip it. Same with Isabela's tedious quest of leading you all over the place, with your Hawke saying "that's Isabela's trail" about 50 times. I end up playing the parts I really like, and skipping the ones I'm tired of.

It's not a toggle,or skip button, but it works for me because I always play the same pc, a mage,  and never change her appearance, so I have no trouble moving her from one game to another.

Modifié par schalafi, 07 mars 2012 - 05:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

schalafi wrote...

What I've done, when I don't want to do a particular quest, or combat, is to go to one of my previously played games, which I've kept in a Companion folder. I pick out the save that takes me past the part I'm tired of , or bored of playing, and insert it in my current game. For example, I just can't play another "Blackpowder Courtesy" quest, so I skip it. Same with Isabela's tedious quest of leading you all over the place, with your Hawke saying "that's Isabela's trail" about 50 times. I end up playing the parts I really like, and skipping the ones I'm tired of.

It's not a toggle,or skip button, but it works for me because I always play the same pc, a mage,  and never change her appearance, so I have no trouble moving her from one game to another.

Thats fair enough for DA2. To be honest, that game, the way it is now, COULD use a Skip Button. 

But as far as developing new games and new IPs, a Skip Button inherently creates a 'story' section and a 'gameplay' section. If during the Arishok duel, it mattered if you killed him or if you were to do something else, such as do an elaborate trap, where he survived the encounter but surrendered. How would a Skip Button handle that? Automatically kill? Automatically trap? I realize DA2 did not do this, but with a Skip Button, it's not evens possibility to be discussed. 

So while I don't think anyone should play parts of a game they hate, making this option stock across the board will forever divide the two elements in the game. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But as far as developing new games and new IPs, a Skip Button inherently creates a 'story' section and a 'gameplay' section. If during the Arishok duel, it mattered if you killed him or if you were to do something else, such as do an elaborate trap, where he survived the encounter but surrendered. How would a Skip Button handle that? Automatically kill? Automatically trap? I realize DA2 did not do this, but with a Skip Button, it's not evens possibility to be discussed.

The player would be explicitly telling the game that he didn't want input into the outcome.  I would design a skip button to choose a default outcome and never tell the player that another option was possible.

Just as some routine events in any RPG are not modelled (sleeping and eating, most recently), the same could be true on a player-by-player basis for combat or puzzles or dialogue.  That doesn't require that combat cannot be an integral part of the game world.  It only allows that combat need not be an integral part of that player's gameplay experience.  So yes, he'd miss out on the roleplaying options that exist within combat, just as someone who skips dialogue misses the roleplaying options that exist there.

But that doesn't mean those options can't exist.  It simply allows a player to ignore them.

[Fast Jimmy]

But the same reason we don't see much class specific content, or hugely branching storylines, or areas that are unlocked if you make Choice A and a different area for Choice B... game developers are set against creating content that won't be seen by most players. I'm sure this stems from metrics tools that show a lot of players don't even get through their first playthrough, let alone go for seconds or thirds.

If a Skip Button makes a default choice, there's very little incentive for developers to create a separate outcome. I'd LIKE them to, and I think others would as well. However, it doesn't seem to be what they are doing, as they might not find it financially viable enough, I suppose.

But if a segment of players are just going to Automate or skip all combat (or any other gameplay feature they don't find to their liking), then that is a segment of players that won't view this alternate content. Because it would only be seen by a portion of gamers who A) didn't press the Skip Button and made the corresponding choice. Using rough stereotypes, the "story lovers" who would use a Skip Button might make an effort in combat to save Little Timmy, the "combat lovers" may not care, but just want to see more finishing moves and carnage. So that leaves a smaller segment of the population who actually cares about the story to make a certain decision within gameplay, and also put the effort involved to achieve a certain outcome.

I'm being purposefully broad and opaque, because its impossible to say "if X, then Y" in these types of situations. However, if finding multiple outcomes or branching stories, not to mention gameplay-affected-story-elements, are rare in DA2, how much more unlikely would it be that they will show up in future iterations of the series if there is a Skip Button that makes such gameplay decisions more work and/or seen by a smaller segment of gamers?

[schalafi]

One thing I wish all rpgs had was the choice to ignore a fight. In DA2, as soon as those little red dots indicating enemies appeared on your map, no matter if they were at the other end of the map, you *had* to go and fight them before continuing on your way. There's was absolutely no way avoid it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But the same reason we don't see much class specific content, or hugely branching storylines, or areas that are unlocked if you make Choice A and a different area for Choice B... game developers are set against creating content that won't be seen by most players. I'm sure this stems from metrics tools that show a lot of players don't even get through their first playthrough, let alone go for seconds or thirds.

If a Skip Button makes a default choice, there's very little incentive for developers to create a separate outcome.

But that would ignore the reasons they give us options in the first place.  They do give us options.  Therefore, they want us to have options.  All that would be changing is they'd be giving us an extra option: to skip some content.

Every time they offer us a choice, that means they're creating optional content - content some people won't see.  If they truly wanted to minimise that, they'd just take away all of our choices completely.

Hey, wait a minute...

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But the same reason we don't see much class specific content, or hugely branching storylines, or areas that are unlocked if you make Choice A and a different area for Choice B... game developers are set against creating content that won't be seen by most players. I'm sure this stems from metrics tools that show a lot of players don't even get through their first playthrough, let alone go for seconds or thirds.

If a Skip Button makes a default choice, there's very little incentive for developers to create a separate outcome.

But that would ignore the reasons they give us options in the first place.  They do give us options.  Therefore, they want us to have options.  All that would be changing is they'd be giving us an extra option: to skip some content.

Every time they offer us a choice, that means they're creating optional content - content some people won't see.  If they truly wanted to minimise that, they'd just take away all of our choices completely.

Hey, wait a minute...

Heh. I see what you did there.

But it is more to my point, I guess... a skip Button is moving in the direction of an interactive story. SKip all of the game portion of the video game, go right through to the story.

What we saw with DA2 is a more cinematic approach in delivering the game, which also came with a seriously negligible amount of impactful choice. Why would we not think that adding a feature that makes games more like interactive stories would produce any different results than what happened when DA2 tried to move in that same direction?

Its not an issue of developers being unable to implement choices, either in branching stories or gameplay/story desegregation... but its a matter of if they are taking these shortcut, easy routes rather than make gameplay better or more varied, than what in the world would make us think they would put effort into other areas? 

Adding a Skip Button is like saying "We throw up our hands! Gamers will never like this portion of the gameplay, let's just let them fast forward to the part of the story we've been wanting to tell all along anyway." Its more railroading, more plot automation, more an interactive novel. Which is not the type of game DAO was, nor the type of game I'd ever like to see the DA franchise become.

So I'm an official protestor. Boo, Skip Button.

Boo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And I understand. It's just that the combat in DA2 was such a chore that I didn't want to have to endure it. In fact, there were whole quests I wanted to be able to skip, but wasn't allowed to.

I suppose it's not that I would like to have a Skip button generally, but that I would like to have had one in DA2.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

My feeling is that if you did not want combat, why did you buy a game that has it, and if you did not want a story, why buy a game that has that? I mean if you want no combat, go get a sims game and make sims look like DA characters, if you just want to fight, go find a game that does that.

There does not need to be a skip button because people that don't want the key elements of the game should not be buying it. Plain and simple.

[Xewaka]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Adding a Skip Button is like saying "We throw up our hands! Gamers will never like this portion of the gameplay, let's just let them fast forward to the part of the story we've been wanting to tell all along anyway." Its more railroading, more plot automation, more an interactive novel. Which is not the type of game DAO was, nor the type of game I'd ever like to see the DA franchise become.
So I'm an official protestor. Boo, Skip Button.
Boo.

I liked the "skip combat" button in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It was called stealth gameplay. It was a blast. Too bad it didn't work for bosses.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xewaka wrote...

I liked the "skip combat" button in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It was called stealth gameplay. It was a blast. Too bad it didn't work for bosses.

Notice, I didn't say a Skip Combat button. I'd be all for a way to avoid combat, either through stealth, or dialogue, or puzzles, or some other form of gameplay. As I said earlier, I'm not a combat fan.

Even if there were sneaking sections instead of combat, this can be done with gameplay/story desegregation. If you are sneaking and get spotted by a guard, it could mean they run away and lock down the treasure room you are trying to get into, for example, meaning you have to bribe someone for a key, or have to go into a nearby cave to find a secret entrance.

If you didn't like Sneaking around, and didn't like Combat, you could just run up to the place that is being guarded, and hit the "Skip Button."

You wouldn't deal with any combat, any sneaking sections, any lockpicking minigames, any diversions that could happen if you encountered any setbacks. If a player could skip these portions of the game, then why would the developers put ANY resources into making the experience varied? Why have a consequence if you get caught sneaking? In fact, why have sneaking at all? Just have your party run right up to the manor that has the treasure item you are looking for and fight the enemies inside. Who cares if they only give us one option to handle the encounter? We can just hit the "Skip Button" and avoid any part of the game that is challenging or annoying.

That's what I mean by a Skip Button and that's why its dangerous to implement in the design of a game.

[Plaintiff]

Someone has probably already said basically what I'm about to say, but I'm not reading the thread to find out, so:

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 Never shall the two meet. If you can skip combat, then you will never see a day when killing one opponent first will result in one story outcome versus attacking another first

Not necessarily. A default outcome could be chosen for those who take the "skip" option.

And since few/none of the battles in either Dragon Age game feature a mechanic like this anyway, what difference would it make? This might be a concern in any other game series, but not for Dragon Age.

if there is a Skip Button for combat, then there would also likely be a Skip Button for puzzles, for sneak sections, for problem solving areas, for mystery or clue collecting... essentially, the Skip Button would, in order to appeal to those who don't have time for the Game portion of the video game, need to be applied everywhere that "Story" isnt' officially declared.

Again, not necessarily. This is a total 'slippery slope' fallacy, right up there with "legalizing gay marriage will lead to bestiality and pedophilia"

And again, even if it did; in a series like Dragon Age, this wouldn't be a problem.

Secondly, even if the Skip Button doesn't forever divide gameplay and story, it STILL runs the risk of making the gameplay watered-down, boring or non-innovative. Why spend a lot of time and effort making the combat more fun or unique? The people will just Skip it anyway. Why work to develop ways around combat, or skills that can be used other than fighting? People will just run into combat and hit the Skip button and not think twice about other options. Why make a puzzle hard or require thinking? If it makes people think more than two minutes, they'll just hit the Skip button. In fact, why have levels, or potions, or skills, or equipment (other than cosmetic coolness, that is)? All of it just makes combat easier, which the Skip Button does anyway. This, too, is the Nightmare scenario for the Skip Button.

This does not follow. Many elements of games are skippable or can be "turned off" currently. Cutscenes and dialogue can be skipped, but Bioware and most game developers still work very hard on them. I don't hear anybody saying "Why bother improving the graphical quality? People will just skip it anyway!" "Why bother drawing helmets? People will just hit the 'hide' toggle anyway!" "Why bother with voice actors? People will put the game on mute and turn on subtitles anyway!"

All actual evidence points to your fears being baseless.

You seem to be building on the premise that the complete and total integration of story and gameplay is objectively "better" than the alternative. I'd like to know why you feel this is the case.

[Xewaka]

Plaintiff wrote...
You seem to be building on the premise that the complete and total integration of story and gameplay is objectively "better" than the alternative. I'd like to know why you feel this is the case.

Because it leads to a more cohesive and inmersive narrative within the game, reducing the chance of disbelief-suspension issues to crop up.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll try and address your other points broadly in my response, but this in particular I'd like to tackle first.

Plaintiff wrote...

You seem to be building on the premise that the complete and total integration of story and gameplay is objectively "better" than the alternative. I'd like to know why you feel this is the case.

It is always better to show me than to tell. In DA2, the only options you are ever given are through dialogue. If it absolutely does not matter what steps I take in combat, as long as I win, or there is no penalty to failing a sneak mechanic, or there is a puzzle that I get no benefit in beating at all, then a Skip Button does no harm, I agree. But then why have puzzles? Or sneak sections? Or options to talk around combat? Or combat at all? If it doesn't matter how you do it, ever, and there is no consequence to doing it differently (other than not suceeding and having to load your game after dying), then what's the point of even having this gameplay elements? They are filler, there to only waste your time.

If you integrate story or choice aspects into these mechanics, THEN they take on meaning. If you think "Ugh. Another nest of giant spiders to wipe out, what a bore," then the developers have failed in making their game engaging. If, on the other hand, someone who only like the story is thrown into a situation where the giant spiders are closing in on one of their favorite non-Companion characters who may die, then it becomes "Argh! Die, giant spiders, DIE!!!"

Spamming endless waves of combat (or sneaking around with no consequence to getting caught as in MotA or having puzzles that make no real sense to the plot or area like arguably happens with the Urn of Sacred Ashes) does nothing for enriching a game. So why in the world wouldn't implementing real consequences or choices into these mechanics NOT make them better?

And in regards to the "Dragon Age doesn't have many sections where combat or other gameplay affects the story, so why care?" method of thinking, its something that DAO had, albeit in small bites. You could talk your way out of fighting Ser Cauthien, or surrendering (which opened up the Jail Tower minigame, which, in turn, allowed you to take a combat, a dialogue, or a sneak approach to getting out) or you are given the option of killing her and her guards on the spot, which removes her from later interesting dialogue in the game.

Did DAO and other Bioware games do tons of this? No. Did I really enjoy when they did? Yes. And did the oversimplifacation of combat in DA2 totally pre-empt 99% of this? I'd say so.

So going further down the lane of creating a totally stripped down, streamlined, over-simplified combat system that inlcudes a Skip Button, let alone has no means of having non-combat solutions, is reducing the future of the series to "walk around, fight, talk." If I can fast travel and skip combat at will, I'm left with making dialogue decisions and watching cutscenes. Which is, by definition, an interactive story game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 mars 2012 - 01:41 .

[Plaintiff]

Xewaka wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
You seem to be building on the premise that the complete and total integration of story and gameplay is objectively "better" than the alternative. I'd like to know why you feel this is the case.

Because it leads to a more cohesive and inmersive narrative within the game, reducing the chance of disbelief-suspension issues to crop up.

I'm not seeing the connection, here. People freqeuntly cite certain aspects of DA2 (gameplay, graphics, battle animations) as "immersion breaking". I have never had this problem. These aspects are irrelevent to my immersion in a game. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion and immersion within a narrative come from the narrative and only the narrative.

[Xewaka]

Plaintiff wrote...
I'm not seeing the connection, here. People freqeuntly cite certain aspects of DA2 (gameplay, graphics, battle animations) as "immersion breaking". I have never had this problem. These aspects are irrelevent to my immersion in a game. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion and immersion within a narrative come from the narrative and only the narrative.

The gameplay is part of the narrative.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
It is always better to show me than to tell.

Yes.

In DA2, the only options you are ever given are through dialogue. If it absolutely does not matter what steps I take in combat, as long as I win, or there is no penalty to failing a sneak mechanic, or there is a puzzle that I get no benefit in beating at all, then a Skip Button does no harm, I agree. But then why have puzzles? Or sneak sections? Or options to talk around combat? Or combat at all?

Because people, the majority of people, in fact, will still want those things and will still play and enjoy them. I will still want them, and will still play and enjoy them. I know we're trying not to mention her here, but Hepler's comments were a) purely wishful thinking and an issue of practicality that is specific to her. As a game writer, part of doing her job is being aware of the kind of stories the competition is writing, and fitting that in around her personal commitments. Her answer was worded poorly (a result of the interviewer's poor technique, if you ask me), but I thought the intent was fairly clear. 

If it doesn't matter how you do it, ever, and there is no consequence to doing it differently (other than not suceeding and having to load your game after dying), then what's the point of even having this gameplay elements? They are filler, there to only waste your time.

You assume that a "skip" button and branching scenario outcomes could not occur in the same game. I see no reason why this should be the case. They could very easily have "skippers" travel down a default path, and leave the branching options as special "rewards", if you like, for the people who take the tme to play that particular section. I think that's a middleground that could work very well.

If you integrate story or choice aspects into these mechanics, THEN they take on meaning. If you think "Ugh. Another nest of giant spiders to wipe out, what a bore," then the developers have failed in making their game engaging. If, on the other hand, someone who only like the story is thrown into a situation where the giant spiders are closing in on one of their favorite non-Companion characters who may die, then it becomes "Argh! Die, giant spiders, DIE!!!"

Sure, for some people. If I find myself playing a game where I run the risk of permanently losing my companions, I'm going to be turned off. If it's only in particular scripted incidences that I can affect the outcome of, then fine, but being constantly on my guard is a) tiring and alienating, for someone like me, for whom companions in general are of particular importance. Perma-death is my major issue with Fallout 3. As a result of that particular mechanic, I just don't recruit anybody at all. And I would actually like to because, as silly as it sounds, watching my character trudge through crumbling ruins makes me feel very lonely (although the companions don't actually alleviate that feeling much, because they're so incredibly shallow and limited in their dialogue).

Spamming endless waves of combat (or sneaking around with no consequence to getting caught as in MotA or having puzzles that make no real sense to the plot or area like arguably happens with the Urn of Sacred Ashes) does nothing for enriching a game. So why in the world wouldn't implementing real consequences or choices into these mechanics NOT make them better?

Define "real consequences". How far should they go in implementing these? In Morrowind, it was possible to deliberately or accidentally kill plot-critical characters, making it impossible to complete the storyline. That is a serious problem... unless you're one of "those" gamers, who lambast game developers for being "arrogant" enough to think that anyone would want to play their carefully crafted story at all.

If a player fails the trials in Andraste's Tomb before reaching the sacred ashes, should they then be forcibly ejected by the guardian and barred from ever returning, leaving Eamon in a coma forever, with Bann Teagan taking over in his stead? Should it be possible to fail so many plot-critical missions that the player receives a non-standard game over and is forced to start over completely fresh (unless they happen to have saved extremely frequently, of course)? I am not against such things, truth be told, but there is the practical concern of resources to be considered. Not every choice can be implemented, a video game does not and can never have a GM's ability to think on the fly.

And in regards to the "Dragon Age doesn't have many sections where combat or other gameplay affects the story, so why care?" method of thinking, its something that DAO had, albeit in small bites. You could talk your way out of fighting Ser Cauthien, or surrendering (which opened up the Jail Tower minigame, which, in turn, allowed you to take a combat, a dialogue, or a sneak approach to getting out) or you are given the option of killing her and her guards on the spot, which removes her from later interesting dialogue in the game.

What if a player has crafted a violent, trigger-happy character for the purposes of roleplay, but still wants to be able to skip combat? The option of a diplomatic resolution won't help them there.

Did DAO and other Bioware games do tons of this? No. Did I really enjoy when they did? Yes. And did the oversimplifacation of combat in DA2 totally pre-empt 99% of this? I'd say so.

I did not find DA2's combat to be simplified from DA:O's, but that's really a separate issue.

So going further down the lane of creating a totally stripped down, streamlined, over-simplified combat system that inlcudes a Skip Button, let alone has no means of having non-combat solutions, is reducing the future of the series to "walk around, fight, talk." If I can fast travel and skip combat at will, I'm left with making dialogue decisions and watching cutscenes. Which is, by definition, an interactive story game.

I was rather under the impression that that is what an RPG is supposed to be, regardless of the medium through which it is delivered.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[Plaintiff]

Xewaka wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I'm not seeing the connection, here. People freqeuntly cite certain aspects of DA2 (gameplay, graphics, battle animations) as "immersion breaking". I have never had this problem. These aspects are irrelevent to my immersion in a game. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion and immersion within a narrative come from the narrative and only the narrative.

The gameplay is part of the narrative.

I have not ever found this to be true in any game I've played.

[Xewaka]

Plaintiff wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I'm not seeing the connection, here. People freqeuntly cite certain aspects of DA2 (gameplay, graphics, battle animations) as "immersion breaking". I have never had this problem. These aspects are irrelevent to my immersion in a game. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion and immersion within a narrative come from the narrative and only the narrative.

The gameplay is part of the narrative.

I have not ever found this to be true in any game I've played.

I will let people more eloquent than me explain it.

[hoorayforicecream]

The thing that the folks who are using the reductionist argument are doing is saying that "Hey, if they have this, then the rest of the game isn't necessary." That's fallacious thinking. Many of Bioware's previous games, including those lauded by many of the people posting here, can have large quantities of the content skipped. In DAO, I'm pretty sure you could skip the dwarves and the elves altogether, and some of the most-downloaded mods out there is the 'skip the fade' and the 'skip the deep roads' mods. Baldur's Gate allowed you to skip a large portion of it to follow just the critical path by simply not going to those areas. Does that mean that those portions of the game were wasted, and that Bioware stopped doing them? Considering we still have sidequests, companion characters and optional content in the games that they produce, I'd say no.

By reducing the argument to "if you can skip it, lots of people will and there's no point to making the rest of the content", you're essentially saying that players will never bother with optional content... and that's just not true. There are people who have played and replayed DA and Mass Effect just to explore what's there. There are plenty of completionists who want to see what this companion's story is, or what happened on that sidequest, and these have almost always been totally optional. Not on the critical path at all. If you choose to do so, you'll probably have some consequences later... but who's to say that can't happen with a skip combat button? All it takes is the right implementation, which I believe that Bioware as a company is dedicated to finding... or at least trying to find.

Why is the ability to skip content X that's always been there somehow different than the ability to skip content Y that hasn't? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Why is the ability to skip content X that's always been there somehow different than the ability to skip content Y that hasn't? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because I can read faster than the voice actor can speak. Hence, I have already experienced the available content at that point.

Modifié par Xewaka, 08 mars 2012 - 03:45 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Why is the ability to skip content X that's always been there somehow different than the ability to skip content Y that hasn't? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because I can read faster than the voice actor can speak. Hence, I have already experienced the available content at that point.

Which is why they allow you to skip lines of conversations and move on to the next part. You might miss out on the delivery, or any action that might happen during that delivery, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those were wasted on everyone. It just means that they were wasted for you.

[grregg]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Why is the ability to skip content X that's always been there somehow different than the ability to skip content Y that hasn't? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because I can read faster than the voice actor can speak. Hence, I have already experienced the available content at that point.

Well, seeing that combat consists of repeatedly replaying a fixed set of combat animations and effects, once I've seen them all, I experienced all that combat has to show, right?

The outcome is predetermined, I always win, all the characters survive, health and mana regenerates about 2 seconds after the fight, there is no ammo that I might run out of so what exactly am I missing if I skip the whole thing?

Heck, a good cinematic designer could easily use the available combat animations to make a combat cutscene that would look way better than the actual combat.

Modifié par grregg, 08 mars 2012 - 04:35 .

[Pasquale1234]

I have a question for those who would advocate and support content skipping features...

...would level-up and character build matter anymore?

A few examples:
1) A game could implement the possibility of sneaking past the guards that would require the player to have a rogue in the party with a certain skill. If the player did not have a party member with that ability, and wanted to skip the content, how would it be resolved?
2) In a case where the player would need to pick a lock to loot a chest or gain entry to a room, the game typically requires a rogue with a certain level of an attribute or skill to be successful. Would skippers be expected to have the required party member with the required skill level in tow, or would they be successful regardless?
3) Speaking of which, would skippers automatically receive some default loot from the content they skipped?  Would loot even matter to someone who was skipping a lot of the content?

If these scenarios could be successfully resolved regardless of characters and builds, then character class could cease to be a factor, and you may as well also skip the level-up process.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 08 mars 2012 - 05:11 .