49 réponses à ce sujet

[Ponendus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

I think Jennifer's idea is great. Always have. I think ME3s 'story mode' was an example of how it could work.

Story mode is just casual renamed so people don't feel so bad about using it.

Why would someone feel bad about using it? I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

[nightscrawl]

Blacklash93 wrote...

It's not as simple as just adding a "skip gameplay" feature. You have to sacrifice the ideas of developing things like story-based choices and ambient dialogue or events that progress and enrich the plot that occur in the context of gameplay to make both playstyles equally viable. Well actually it is possible to avoid those sacrifices while keeping both playstyles equal, but significant and exclusive extra content for both modes would have to be developed and I shouldn't have to explain the drawbacks of that.

But really who is going to be playing a videogame just for the story? Is there really a considerable market for this type of mode? That's not the audience, here. If people find a videogame story really good but hate playing the game they're better off just waiting and generating demand for a movie adaption. Or Youtube.

"God Mode" with combat/puzzles seems like the way to go if you're considering players who may not like the gameplay. ME3 got it right.

I don't understand. Why does there have to be significant and exclusive extra content for both modes?

Think what you will about me as a player, but I enjoyed the combat in DA2 a lot more than DAO. I found it much more entertaining than the combat in DAO. That said, I primarily play these games for the story. And no, it's not the same as watching a movie adaptation or watching other people play. It's about myself interacting with the story, making important decisions, learning things, exploring the areas, and yes, the RP aspect of it.

It would feel less like filler if combat didn't seem like it in these games. OK, exploring the Deep Roads you expect a ton of darkspawn to cut through, the same with going through the mage tower in DAO. The enemies are supposed to be there as part of the story. On the other hand, running through Kirkwall at night just to trigger the various encounters and get the 3 hideout quests was just silly. If combat is made integral to the story I don't mind it at all. Killing the Archdemon, dueling the Arishok and other such moments.

I basically play in "God Mode" in Neverwinter Nights. I have a custom module where I use DM commands to give myself millions of gold, level to 20 (or higher), custom merchants with all sorts of armor, weapons (standard and custom), and then the option to load the official campaign or expansions directly from my module. I still go through all of the areas and kill things in 1 or 2 hits, but dying is never a concern, neither is scrounging for gear.

Blacklash93 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Story mode is just casual renamed so people don't feel so bad about using it.

I don't think casual gamers really care being called that. That doesn't really come with the negative stereotypes of being called a "hardcore" gamer.

I consider myself a casual player in DA (my hardest mode in DAO is "easy" since I can avoid FF in no other way, I've played briefly on "hard" in DA2) and 30/70 casual/hardcore in WoW (I raid there and focus on min/maxing with gear, but my guild is not after world or even server firsts or anything).

You should read how they're talked of on the WoW forums. I take your point that it's only the "hardcore" gamers who talk so, but I don't think it means as little as you think it does. Whether for a single-pay game like Dragon Age or a subscription like WoW or TOR, the casual money is worth the same, and yes casuals can and do invest the same amount of time into the game as hardcore players. The irritation or resentment comes from being treated like our opinion has no value or worth and that any investment made to appeal to such players is a waste of time and money by the company.

[batlin]

Video games are not a cinematic media. If that's what you want, go watch a movie.

Video games have the unique ability to integrate narrative into gameplay. If Hepler's cutscene theater idea ever happened, it would be impossible to ever progress the plot while challenging gameplay is happening. If gameplay and narrative were cleaved in two in order to allow for this horse s*** idea, it conveys to the player that whenever they're being challenged nothing important will happen.

It's basically demanding players to not ever be invested in the gameplay.

[Blacklash93]

nightscrawl wrote...

I don't understand. Why does there have to be significant and exclusive extra content for both modes?

Think about it. If DA2 had a mode that just skipped from one cutscene to the next with nothing connecting them do you think it would be as compelling as the videogame experience would be for gamers?

Also narrative and story choices and opportunities that happen in the context of gameplay would have to be sacrificed to make both modes equal.

[Aldandil]

batlin wrote...

Video games are not a cinematic media. If that's what you want, go watch a movie.

Video games have the unique ability to integrate narrative into gameplay. If Hepler's cutscene theater idea ever happened, it would be impossible to ever progress the plot while challenging gameplay is happening. If gameplay and narrative were cleaved in two in order to allow for this horse s*** idea, it conveys to the player that whenever they're being challenged nothing important will happen.

It's basically demanding players to not ever be invested in the gameplay.

This isn't necessarily true, combat is part of gameplay, that's true, but it's not synonomous with gameplay. There's more gameplay outside combat, and allowing you to skip combat would give the person who chooses to do so a shorter, smaller game, not an interactive movie.

[nightscrawl]

Blacklash93 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

I don't understand. Why does there have to be significant and exclusive extra content for both modes?

Think about it. If DA2 had a mode that just skipped from one cutscene to the next with nothing connecting them do you think it would be as compelling as the videogame experience would be for gamers?

Also narrative and story choices and opportunities that happen in the context of gameplay would have to be sacrificed to make both modes equal.

I really don't see that to be honest. Compelling depends on the audience. Your use of "gamers" implies that they all want the same content from their games, which is not so. There are many genres of games, with varying difficulties, varying social interaction, and varying levels of mental exertion to appeal to various people. All of those can be considered "gamers" as there are people who want absolutely nothing at all to do with games on a screen, even something as basic as Tetris.

Lack of any and all combat basically makes it an interactive movie. Since you need to kill some encounters in order to progress through the story, it can be assumed that you succeeded by the very fact of going to the next scene. Other than party banter, most of the character and plot development takes place in cutscenes. Aside from the important combat of plot-oriented boss fights like the Archdemon, most combat has nothing at all to do with the story, it's just there because it's how games of this type are structured.

If the very act of playing through the combat is an essential part of what makes games like these an RPG, then certainly a game where there is no combat but still has the same story elements can be considered more of a Sim or Choose Your Own Adventure type of thing.

I wouldn't be much interested in such a game, I would find it boring. As much as I do play these games for the story, the combat is, and can be, great fun. While I can understand Jennifer's desire, it seems to me that skipping the combat would take away part of what makes your character "heroic." It would cheapen NPCs hailing me as a hero if I hadn't actually done the heroic deeds. Similarly, RPers who play their characters as cocky badasses really have nothing to show for it by skipping combat.

I really like the way Diablo 3 has done it. There are four levels of difficulty that you can only get to once you have played the previous one. The very first is Normal, extremely easy, really lets you enjoy the story elements as you move along. Following are Nightmare, Hell, and Inferno. Those who really want a challenge can make a Hardcore character; you have permanent death, so you had better plan your fights carefully.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 07 juin 2012 - 01:26 .

[AkiKishi]

Begemotka wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

I don't understand. Why does there have to be significant and exclusive extra content for both modes?

Think about it. If DA2 had a mode that just skipped from one cutscene to the next with nothing connecting them do you think it would be as compelling as the videogame experience would be for gamers?

Also narrative and story choices and opportunities that happen in the context of gameplay would have to be sacrificed to make both modes equal.

Exactly how I feel about it,the bolded part in particular.
While I understand Jennifer probably made her suggestion for greater inclusivity,it would probably mean sacrificing innovative solutions such as those presented in Xenoblade Chronicles - a Wii game I have not played,but read and heard a lot about. Snippets are from Wikipedia : 

"Another of the game's systems is the "Bonds" system, in which characters can partake in many optional sidequests with non-player characters.
Completing such quests can alter perception of the character in the towns, and open up additional story sequences.
The game also has an "Affinity" system, where each member has an Affinity stat that indicates how they feel about another party member, ranging from indifference to high friendship/love. These affinities can be altered by having characters participate in battle together, giving gifts, or using the "Heart-to-Heart" system. These "Heart-to-Hearts" are intimate moments between two characters that can show more of a character's personality, history, or thoughts, and can be initiated by having certain characters at certain places while having a high enough Affinity between them."

Just my two cents.   

WARNING THIS IS VERRRYYYYYY LONNNNGGGGGGG !!!! 

But should give some idea of the theory in practice. It's from a bonus DvD which came with Xenosaga 2 (because the first was never released outside of Japan).



All in all I'd rather watch a movie or play a game.

[AkiKishi]

Begemotka wrote...
In the name of all that is holy,my most favouritestest Bob,7 hours ?      
Will watch it sometime,though. I know playing it would take even longer..

This little tutorial video has the basics covered,though.

Xenoblades Affinity System

So,all in all,skipping combat would make us skip...that,for example.

It's quite entertaining watched it before I played Xenosaga2.

Any game where you have some sort of combat relationship (which all games should have) will have that problem.
There are other ways to up your affinity in Xenoblade , but combat does give you a lot of hearts.

And while I did enjoy the Xenosaga move, no way would I pay £39.99 for it.

If there really is any sort of market for that (which I doubt) they should put it up on a web site or something when the game is released.

[Dakota Strider]

If a game company can make money from selling it, they will do it, and more power to them. I question the common sense of a person that would pay a full game price ($60-$70) for a product that they are going to view like a cartoon movie. If they do not like the actual gameplay, I think they would be better served buying a movie or a book, for about $20.

But, as long as this idea does nothing to remove standard Role Playing game features from the standard DA game, I am fine with it. Those people that want to pay full price for 1/3 of the product, will only help the publisher to be able to make more games I want to play in the future.

[AkiKishi]

Here is another much shorter movie which was released with the game Shenmue.

[nightcobra]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Here is another much shorter movie which was released with the game Shenmue.

aww c'mon...why did you have to re-open old wounds?

i want Shenmue 3 dammit:pinched:

[Zanallen]

BobSmith101 wrote...

WARNING THIS IS VERRRYYYYYY LONNNNGGGGGGG !!!! 

But should give some idea of the theory in practice. It's from a bonus DvD which came with Xenosaga 2 (because the first was never released outside of Japan).



All in all I'd rather watch a movie or play a game.

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. Xenosaga 1 was released in North America in February 2003. I own it.

Also, Hepler's idea is fine, though I would just make a game without combat. Like a visual novel or perhaps an adventure game. No one really makes adventure games anymore, so that might be a great idea.

Modifié par Zanallen, 07 juin 2012 - 05:44 .

[batlin]

Zanallen wrote...

Also, Hepler's idea is fine, though I would just make a game without combat. Like a visual novel or perhaps an adventure game. No one really makes adventure games anymore, so that might be a great idea.

Like Asura's Wrath? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to pay $60 for a 4-hour OVA, no matter how good it is.

At most, I'd pay $20 for that.

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[Zanallen]

batlin wrote...

Like Asura's Wrath? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to pay $60 for a 4-hour OVA, no matter how good it is.

At most, I'd pay $20 for that.

No, like Day of the Tentacle or Maniac Mansion. Ashura's Wrath is an action game, not an adventure game.

[batlin]

Zanallen wrote...

No, like Day of the Tentacle or Maniac Mansion. Ashura's Wrath is an action game, not an adventure game.

I wouldn't necessarily call those games visual novels. IIRC they involve puzzle-solving

[Zanallen]

batlin wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

No, like Day of the Tentacle or Maniac Mansion. Ashura's Wrath is an action game, not an adventure game.

I wouldn't necessarily call those games visual novels. IIRC they involve puzzle-solving

They aren't. They are adventure games.

And Hepler never said she didn't like puzzles. (And indeed, several games already make puzzles optional or include ways to bypass them) She specified that she didn't like combat. Having an option to remove combat =/= removing all gameplay aspects, no matter how many times people keep trying to spin it that way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Hepler's idea had been implemented in DA2, I would have used it.

Once I discovered I didn't enjoy DA2's gameplay, I tried rushing through the game playing on casual but even that was too much of a chose. I would love to have been able to skip combat entirely.

[Blacklash93]

nightscrawl wrote...
I really don't see that to be honest. Compelling depends on the audience.

DA:O or DA2 would seem incredibly choppy and disjointed if you simply strung all the cutscenes together. Gameplay is part of storytelling in videogames even in cutscene-heavy games because it connects them. For a "movie" mode you would need to develop extra content to replace the connections the gameplay provided.

When making two seperate versions of a campaign for a game that is on reasonable budgets of time and money, compromises have to be made with the story, design, and gameplay to make both modes as equally enjoyable as possible for their audiences. This applies to adding an interactive movie mode on top of a traditional videogame as well and that is a fact.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 07 juin 2012 - 08:14 .

[PsychoBlonde]

berelinde wrote...

Yeah, that 97th wave of paratrooping guard pretenders was the pinnacle of role-playing excellence. It would have been criminal to skip that.

I understand the necessity of boss fights and I play on "hard," so I'm not daunted by combat, but when it's nothing but meaningless grinding, enough is enough. If the idea of "Hit escape to skip combat" is unacceptable, there needs to be more reason to play through endless fights, e.g. the return of tactical combat, or there needs to be a way to resolve the encounter without violence.

This^2.  I would LOVE to be able to make it through a playthrough on Hard, 'cause I do actually enjoy tactical combat and crunchy bits, but I GET SO BORED that I always wind up jamming the difficulty all the way back down to casual by the halfway point.  I love combat!  I play an MMO ALL THE TIME.

Or, maybe the failing isn't in the combat per se, maybe it's just that the nature of the overall game pushes you to regard the combat as an annoyance and a grind rather than part of what you're playing for.  When I played TOR, I found myself skipping through all the dialog because it was a distraction from what I wanted to be doing, namely running about shooting things and scoring loot.  It's not that I'm averse to dialog, far from it, it was just in that context it was not engaging me.

So maybe the real problem here is not that the combat is bad or the dialog is bad (not that either is perfect), but that THE GAME IS DISINTEGRATED, i.e. you have several elements that are so different and apart from each other that at least one of them feels like a DISTRACTION when you're enjoying the other.

I know that in DA2, I didn't give a crap about *what* happened in combat aside from not having a TPK.  Likewise in TOR I didn't really care WHAT happened in dialog aside from getting the light-side options.  In DA2, combat doesn't steer the game outcomes.  In TOR, conversation doesn't steer the game outcomes.  In Skyrim . . . no, Skyrim's a bad example.  Well, no it isn't, because everything you do in Skyrim (even incredibly tedious shyte like looting and selling) is integrated around one principle: advancing your character.  Getting more gear.  More money.  More skills.  More booms.  More backstabs.  More shouts.  MOAR MOAR MOAR.  It's fully integrated in that respect.

Gameplay in Dragon Age is simply a pass/fail, and it gets old after a while, how long, of course, being a matter of personal preference.  I'll grant you that a lot of the combat in Skyrim is the same way, but here's the difference: the vast majority of combats in Skyrim are over in the blink of an eye, they're a matter of a couple fireballs or a couple sword swings.  There's not ONE meaningless combat in Dragon Age that's over that soon unless you're playing on casual, and maybe not even then, and there's usually nothing interesting BETWEEN combats until you get to the next quest point.  There's no Combat/Puzzle/Trap/I'm lost where am I going again/trap/loot/ooh book/loot/trap sequence, either.  It just goes Combat/Combat/Combat/CUTSCENE/BIG COMBAT/QUEST END.  Traps are IN combat and the few puzzles are bracketed by cut scenes and totally divorced from anything else that's going on.

[PsychoBlonde]

Blacklash93 wrote...

DA:O or DA2 would seem incredibly choppy and disjointed if you simply strung all the cutscenes together.

Not if you give even a brief glimpse of how you get from one cut scene to the next.  You could delete 100% of the combat and just show the party running from one location to the next with the suggestion that there was some fighting in the middle and it would make PERFECT sense.  The combat qua combat has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the story.

In literary terms, it'd be the equivalent of saying something like "and they fought their way to the next level of the tower!", and it would cover absolutely everything you'd need to know.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blacklash93 wrote...

DA:O or DA2 would seem incredibly choppy and disjointed if you simply strung all the cutscenes together.

I agree, but the solution to that is to leave all of the exploration in the game, too.

Just remove all of the combat.

[PsychoBlonde]

batlin wrote...

Video games are not a cinematic media. If that's what you want, go watch a movie.

If this is true, then why do they keep cramming in MORE cinematic animations/cutscenes/storytelling tricks?

It's hardly OUR fault if the devs make what is essentially a movie that is periodically interrupted by a bunch of annoying pass/fail tests.  If they'd actually make an effort to integrate story and gameplay we wouldn't even HAVE this problem.  Instead, they become steadily further and further apart.