146 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I'd have thought most people who wanted to skip combat would want to skip the levelling up process too.

Most Bioware games already have an Auto-level function anyway.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

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.

The Mass Effect series already has auto-leveling options without the combat skipping. After going back to play ME1 last night, I found myself wishing it had a skip combat option, and instead simply setting it to casual difficulty so I could get to the story bits that I wanted.

There are plenty of RPGs where the player's class is never really a factor. The Witcher 2, for example, doesn't even allow class choice at all. You could replace *all* of the combat in the witcher 2 with canned cinematics and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference in the overall story.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 08 mars 2012 - 05:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

The gameplay is part of the narrative.

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

I would argue that this has been true in every game you have played.  Unless you're misdefining "narrative", it's obviously the case.

The gameplay, including the combat and even inventory management, is part of the set of things your character does.  The story of his adventures includes these events.  These events are part of the narrative.  The tactics you choose to employ are a part of the narrative.  It's emergent narrative (rather than authored narrative), but it's still narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are plenty of RPGs where the player's class is never really a factor. The Witcher 2, for example, doesn't even allow class choice at all. You could replace *all* of the combat in the witcher 2 with canned cinematics and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference in the overall story.

What exactly is the "overall" story?

The story is the tale of what happens.  Whether Geralt attacks monster A before monster B is part of that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 mars 2012 - 05:31 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are plenty of RPGs where the player's class is never really a factor. The Witcher 2, for example, doesn't even allow class choice at all. You could replace *all* of the combat in the witcher 2 with canned cinematics and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference in the overall story.

What exactly is the "overall" story?

The story is the tale of what happens.  Whether Geralt attacks monster A before monster B is part of that.

I do not care whether Geralt kills 10 imperial soldiers or 11. I do not care whether Geralt swung at the dragon 142 times to kill it or 163. Those may be part of the story for you, and perhaps you care a lot whether Geralt spent 52 coins to sleep with brothel worker A rather than 79 coins to sleep with brothel worker B, but I don't think details like that matter. None of that has an effect on the way the other characters react to Geralt, or the flow of the story.

[Pasquale1234]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are plenty of RPGs where the player's class is never really a factor. The Witcher 2, for example, doesn't even allow class choice at all. You could replace *all* of the combat in the witcher 2 with canned cinematics and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference in the overall story.

TW2 was also a game that featured a very specific, pre-defined character in Geralt - which is one of the reasons why I have never played it.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about the DA series is that they are party-based, and class matters.  I think the party-based dynamics would change considerably if class was removed from the equation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What exactly is the "overall" story?

I do not care whether Geralt kills 10 imperial soldiers or 11. I do not care whether Geralt swung at the dragon 142 times to kill it or 163. Those may be part of the story for you, and perhaps you care a lot whether Geralt spent 52 coins to sleep with brothel worker A rather than 79 coins to sleep with brothel worker B, but I don't think details like that matter. None of that has an effect on the way the other characters react to Geralt, or the flow of the story.

So the "overall story" is merely the story you care about.

Surely you can see how compelling that isn't.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What exactly is the "overall" story?

I do not care whether Geralt kills 10 imperial soldiers or 11. I do not care whether Geralt swung at the dragon 142 times to kill it or 163. Those may be part of the story for you, and perhaps you care a lot whether Geralt spent 52 coins to sleep with brothel worker A rather than 79 coins to sleep with brothel worker B, but I don't think details like that matter. None of that has an effect on the way the other characters react to Geralt, or the flow of the story.

So the "overall story" is merely the story you care about.

Surely you can see how compelling that isn't.

I don't understand. Aren't you always speaking about the game that you care about? Why can't I make those same sort of statements?

[hoorayforicecream]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are plenty of RPGs where the player's class is never really a factor. The Witcher 2, for example, doesn't even allow class choice at all. You could replace *all* of the combat in the witcher 2 with canned cinematics and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference in the overall story.

TW2 was also a game that featured a very specific, pre-defined character in Geralt - which is one of the reasons why I have never played it.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about the DA series is that they are party-based, and class matters.  I think the party-based dynamics would change considerably if class was removed from the equation.

You're oversimplifying. class could easily still be taken into account, even if something like level was not. Picking locks could, for example, be replaced by a minigame (to which rogues would receive a bonus) rather than simply checking against a particular stat. Being a mage could allow for different game choices than a warrior (such as choosing to enter the fade in DAO). These are not necessarily level or combat dependent, but are class-dependent choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So the "overall story" is merely the story you care about.

Surely you can see how compelling that isn't.

I don't understand. Aren't you always speaking about the game that you care about? Why can't I make those same sort of statements?

I'm speaking about the game that is.

The actual content within the game isn't subject to anyone's opinion (just as the definition of narrative isn't).  You broadly denied that gameplay is part of the narrative, and that simply isn't true.  Then you retreated to the position that gameplay isn't part of the narrative you care about, which may well be true, but it's also unrelated to the discussion at hand.

This was a discussion of whether gameplay can be an important part of the narrative.  That you don't want it to be has no bearing on that possibility.

[Pasquale1234]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're oversimplifying. class could easily still be taken into account, even if something like level was not. Picking locks could, for example, be replaced by a minigame (to which rogues would receive a bonus) rather than simply checking against a particular stat. Being a mage could allow for different game choices than a warrior (such as choosing to enter the fade in DAO). These are not necessarily level or combat dependent, but are class-dependent choices.

Which sort of comes back around to my original questions about skipping content...

.... which asked whether those players wanting to skip, for example, some content that requires a rogue capable of picking a lock would be required to have that rogue in the party in order to successfully skip said content.

If not, you would be creating a very different sort of "game" experience that would essentially be an interactive novel.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This was a discussion of whether gameplay can be an important part of the narrative.  That you don't want it to be has no bearing on that possibility.

I responded to the false claim that the option of skipping combat will somehow make the combat worthless. I pointed out that there is often optional gameplay that players will play through and enjoy, even when offered the option of skipping it. If you somehow chose to conflate that to your assumption that I don't want gameplay to have a part of narrative, that's your mistake.

I fully believe that gameplay can be an important part of narrative when the intention is there. I just don't believe that it always should be, or that the minutiae of gameplay must be meaningful in a narrative sense.

[hoorayforicecream]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're oversimplifying. class could easily still be taken into account, even if something like level was not. Picking locks could, for example, be replaced by a minigame (to which rogues would receive a bonus) rather than simply checking against a particular stat. Being a mage could allow for different game choices than a warrior (such as choosing to enter the fade in DAO). These are not necessarily level or combat dependent, but are class-dependent choices.

Which sort of comes back around to my original questions about skipping content...

.... which asked whether those players wanting to skip, for example, some content that requires a rogue capable of picking a lock would be required to have that rogue in the party in order to successfully skip said content.

If not, you would be creating a very different sort of "game" experience that would essentially be an interactive novel.

What's wrong with providing an option for an interactive novel to a player that wants an interactive novel experience? As long as you have the choice to play the 'full' experience, why begrudge someone else the choice to skip it? You're not the developer here, you're just the consumer. It isn't up to you to come up with the implementation, you just need to acknowledge that such an implementation is possible. It seems like you're saying it isn't possible, and I think that's silly.

I think it comes down to players being fearful that zots will be channeled away from doing the things they want in order to provide an experience that other players who may like different things.

[Wulfram]

I still think it's probably much simpler to do it as a super easy mode like ME3 than to have an actual skip combat button.

And it avoids some of the issues that might come up if you want to tie the combat into the narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I still think it's probably much simpler to do it as a super easy mode like ME3 than to have an actual skip combat button.

That's probably true.

[Pasquale1234]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

What's wrong with providing an option for an interactive novel to a player that wants an interactive novel experience? As long as you have the choice to play the 'full' experience, why begrudge someone else the choice to skip it?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, nor do I begrudge anyone the experience they'd like.

You're not the developer here, you're just the consumer. It isn't up to you to come up with the implementation, you just need to acknowledge that such an implementation is possible. It seems like you're saying it isn't possible, and I think that's silly.

No, I'm not the developer here, but I am a software engineer and so it is natural for me to think about how something might be implemented.  What I am trying to do is wrap my head around how it would work.  Is that not the purpose of discussing proposed features?

I think it comes down to players being fearful that zots will be channeled away from doing the things they want in order to provide an experience that other players who may like different things.

Well, it would require some zots, and introduce a lot more paths through the game, which also provides more opportunities for bugs.  Beyond that, it could take away from the idea of the player helping to shape the narrative via gameplay choices and consequences that might take place within any content that is skippable.  OTOH, skipping content could also introduce other game consequences - for example, if the player chooses to engage the mooks that run around Kirkwall at night versus avoiding them - that could create some impact on relationships with companions and overall reputation.

For any given feature, there are quite a few different ways it can be implemented to have more or less impact than simply skipping over segments of the game to get to the parts that interest you.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I still think it's probably much simpler to do it as a super easy mode like ME3 than to have an actual skip combat button.

That's probably true.

While not preferable (since how much dynamic gameplay can you get when every fight only last five seconds?) it is better than a true Skip Button. Being able to skip gameplay, whether that is combat, sneak portions, lock picking, trap laying, discussion battles, puzzle solving, item collection or sex mini games like in God Of War, it all becomes a very slippery slope if all of it is skippable, right from the very start, while in the developer's court. 

Ive hear the argument of the 'Skip Fade' or 'Deep Roads' mods. It's a poor argument. Just because a player comes behind a designer and creates these options does not mean the same as if the designer put these in from the start. 

Would Orzamar and the Anvil have the same good story telling if any player could just skip the whole region? Would the glut of side quests and interesting content there, an area that you could fit all of DA2 in, been as deep if it was just seen as 'skippable filler' by the devs? Would the Fade have as Manu puzzles, or companion specific content, or interesting dialogue, if you could just breeze right past it? 

My answer is an emphatic no. I understand players found these areas to be long and boring, but there was still a lot of unique and interesting content, loot, dialogue and coded entires. If a Skip Button could be used to skip it all, this would not have been the case 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Even super-fast combat gets monotonous if you don't care about it at all (this happened to me in DA2 when completing quests that had no relevance to my character), but it would also be a lot cheaper to implement than a true Skip button, and we need to take that into account.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I still think it's probably much simpler to do it as a super easy mode like ME3 than to have an actual skip combat button.

That's probably true.

While not preferable (since how much dynamic gameplay can you get when every fight only last five seconds?) it is better than a true Skip Button. Being able to skip gameplay, whether that is combat, sneak portions, lock picking, trap laying, discussion battles, puzzle solving, item collection or sex mini games like in God Of War, it all becomes a very slippery slope if all of it is skippable, right from the very start, while in the developer's court. 

Ive hear the argument of the 'Skip Fade' or 'Deep Roads' mods. It's a poor argument. Just because a player comes behind a designer and creates these options does not mean the same as if the designer put these in from the start. 

Would Orzamar and the Anvil have the same good story telling if any player could just skip the whole region? Would the glut of side quests and interesting content there, an area that you could fit all of DA2 in, been as deep if it was just seen as 'skippable filler' by the devs? Would the Fade have as Manu puzzles, or companion specific content, or interesting dialogue, if you could just breeze right past it? 

My answer is an emphatic no. I understand players found these areas to be long and boring, but there was still a lot of unique and interesting content, loot, dialogue and coded entires. If a Skip Button could be used to skip it all, this would not have been the case 

Many companions are completely skippable and have been skippable since Baldur's Gate 1. Huge portions of Baldur's Gate and DAO are completely skippable. And yes, the player misses out if they don't go there and do those things. But you know what? They don't have to go there. They don't have to do those things. I'm pretty sure the critical path of DAO allows you to bypass the dwarves and elves completely. Does that mean they've stopped creating entirely skippable sections of gameplay because people have skipped them in the past? Clearly, the answer is no. Even ME3 takes a lot of pains to pull in the results of entirely skippable choices from the past two games.

Your "slippery slope" argument has ignores the fact that game developers have been doing this sort of thing already for a long time. The only sacred cow you've got is that most games allowed players to skip some forms of gameplay (puzzles), but not others (combat). Intelligently allowing players to skip combat is not a bad thing, as long as it's done right. You may not think that's possible, but I certainly do, because game developers have historically demonstrated the ability to do so.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Many companions are completely skippable and have been skippable since Baldur's Gate 1. Huge portions of Baldur's Gate and DAO are completely skippable. And yes, the player misses out if they don't go there and do those things. But you know what? They don't have to go there. They don't have to do those things. I'm pretty sure the critical path of DAO allows you to bypass the dwarves and elves completely. Does that mean they've stopped creating entirely skippable sections of gameplay because people have skipped them in the past? Clearly, the answer is no. Even ME3 takes a lot of pains to pull in the results of entirely skippable choices from the past two games.

You are misuing the word skippable, in relation to this topic of a Skip Button.

If you choose not to do something, you don't do it. You get no benefit, you see no dialogue, you don't enjoy the perks of that section.

If you go through a section, but use a Skip Button to auto-kill all of your enemies, to completely resolve all combat, to automatically gather any keys needed to open locked doors, or auto solve any puzzles, you DO get to see that content, at least the dialogue/story portion of it.

Not joining up with Garrus in the Citadel is an option in ME1. Pressing the AutoSkip button to complete his quest or to make it so it jumps from one dialogue scene to the next would give you all of the benefits of doing his recruiting quest, without any of the options to insert story into the gameplay.

Your "slippery slope" argument has ignores the fact that game developers have been doing this sort of thing already for a long time. The only sacred cow you've got is that most games allowed players to skip some forms of gameplay (puzzles), but not others (combat). Intelligently allowing players to skip combat is not a bad thing, as long as it's done right. You may not think that's possible, but I certainly do, because game developers have historically demonstrated the ability to do so.

Given my qualms with how the developers handled DA2, I don't think they have proven to me they have the drive or capability to do a feature such as this "right." Not that they need to, but on the same hand, I also don't have to approve their design decisions or buy their games.

[Wulfram]

I think this issue would be alleviated if the designer didn't feel the need to include combat which is just plain filler, with neither any real connection to the plot or anything to distinguish it tactically from the others.

Or if you're going to include this filler combat, make it optional. For example, the night time bandits in Kirkwall could only spawn in large numbers if the player accepted a quest to hunt them down.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd say the exact opposite... if you're going to include combat, make it resolvable in a non-combat manner.

I just read an article about how every time a Bethesda game is made Gold, the developers and QA members have a challenge about who can beat the main story of the game the fastest. While I think the overall concept is rather horrid (since they showed that the main plot of their game can be completed in 2 hours and some change), one of the primary tactics employed by the winners was to avoid any non-crucial combat. The winner said there were only eight times combat was 100% required in order to progress.


EIGHT. TIMES. I'm sure we surpassed that amount during the intro while Hawke was still in Ferelden before meeting Flemeth. Options, and multiple approaches to all situations, are the key to good RPG mechanics. People say Hawke is a great character, since he is an "every-man." Not many every-man's I encounter can slay an Ogre and a host of darkspawn at level 1 or 2. Let us not forget that Cailan, with a decent amount of battle experience and some pretty pimp armor, was killed pretty handily by an Ogre. Yet Hawke sliced one down without blinking an eye... or leveling an iota.

Kind of pokes holes in the whole "Hawke isn't an uber-L33T hero" concept...

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mars 2012 - 02:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

It also makes you wonder why everyone in Ferelden is so feeble, given that every single enemy you face in Kirkwall is vastly stronger than that one Ogre.

[Wulfram]

I don't think that taking levels so literally is a good idea. This is clearly a case of gameplay/story segregation, and it's present in virtually every RPG - which of course doesn't make it a good thing, but it is something that should be acknowledged.

There is some power progression going on in the story, but it's to the degree implied by the gameplay. You can get more of a read on the characters in story power by looking at what "rank" is being given to the same enemies at various points than by looking at what their level is.

The Ogre battle is pretty tough, though easier after the patch, I wouldn't call it without blinking an eye. It could be argued that Hawke starts out more powerful than the Warden, because his Ogre comes with lots of friends, whereas the Warden's Ogre was alone. But then Hawke is likely about 5 years older than the Warden.

And of course by the end of the game you're capable of killing a High Dragon, which puts you pretty obviously in the category of epic hero.

[Fast Jimmy]

To be fair, its not in virtually every RPG, only in RPGs of the past five years, which seem to believe that enemy level scaling is the Holy Grail of design mechanics. If it takes the same amount of time and effort to kill an enemy when I am level 1 as it does to kill the same enemy when I am level 20, that's a disconnect. It basically means that my leveling up means nothing, it only unlocks new skills. And, given that the varying skills don't really offer too much in the way of improved tactics, if I could just pick out two or three skills that I will spam throughout combat (which is what people wind up doing anyway) and then stop leveling, it will make things easier, since I won't be leveling up to make my enemies stronger to only reward me with skills that don't bring any true value.

There should be no way I can kill an ogre at level one. No way I should be able to kill even a hurlock at level 1, to be honest. A human bandit should be as low level as they come, since one darkspawn rips through multiple human soldiers.

I should be terrified the first time I come across a new enemy because I should know that a new enemy means a tougher enemy, more than likely. Instead, I fight humans that are tougher than abominiations and Pride demons. Like that makes any sort of sense.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mars 2012 - 04:32 .