223 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But that ISN'T my entire argument. Some people won't like combat, no matter how you gussy it up...  I agree. But maybe that's because there should be a different gameplay alternative to fighting that the person would enjoy much, much more. Sneaking, or utilizing the environment, or having a context-sensitive speech/persuasion system, etc.

But this is predicated on the assumption that the player wants to make the kind of character that would and could use those skills. People can hate combat as a mechanic and still want to make a combat-oriented character for the sake of roleplaying/storytelling. And resolving a problem through sneaking/persuasion rather than combat might affect the story in ways the player does not want.

Having alternative paths is nice, but doesn't actually solve the problem of combat being too difficult or boring or whatever.

And I know, I know. Someone is going to say something along the lines "then it might as well just be an interactive movie". But if people want to shell out $60 for a movie, that's their own business, and doesn't effect anyone else's personal enjoyment of the game at all.

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But that ISN'T my entire argument. Some people won't like combat, no matter how you gussy it up...  I agree. But maybe that's because there should be a different gameplay alternative to fighting that the person would enjoy much, much more. Sneaking, or utilizing the environment, or having a context-sensitive speech/persuasion system, etc.

But this is predicated on the assumption that the player wants to make the kind of character that would and could use those skills. People can hate combat as a mechanic and still want to make a combat-oriented character for the sake of roleplaying/storytelling. And resolving a problem through sneaking/persuasion rather than combat might affect the story in ways the player does not want.

Having alternative paths is nice, but doesn't actually solve the problem of combat being too difficult or boring or whatever.

And I know, I know. Someone is going to say something along the lines "then it might as well just be an interactive movie". But if people want to shell out $60 for a movie, that's their own business, and doesn't effect anyone else's personal enjoyment of the game at all.

Besides, as long as there is path for those who like combat. there is no harm to have a fast forward combat buton for those who wants.

and since we have a skip button, it would be a fantastic opportunity to make the combat more difficult as rule

phil

[legbamel]

Here's my concern with the "skip combat" button or setting: BioWare sees a lot of people using it. The decide to put less and less emphasis on combat, since no one does it anyway, and suddenly there's no point in having different classes of characters. Your roleplaying choices get reduced to dialogue tone and the occasional murder knife.

Kiss mages and archers goodbye. There's no need for armor or weapons if you don't fight. 90% of loot (and the means of obtaining it) just go away. Stats mean nothing outside of persuade and maybe pickpocketing so why bother with a levelling mechanic?

This is intentionally hyperbolic, but if you whittle away at the reasons for customization (read: role playing) why would BioWare keep including it? Eventually all you'd be left with is a chooseyourown adventure game where your avatar wanders around chatting with people for a dozen hours and somehow ends up saving the world in the process.

[Nomen Mendax]

Even if nothing plot relevant happens in combat at the moment it is very much something I want to see from Bioware in the future. As others have said having a skip combat button makes this even more unlikely than it is right now.

To give a concrete example: in DA2 two Qunari are captured, and they get killed in a cut-scene before the combat starts. I wanted to be able to focus fire on whoever was trying to cut their throats and fight my way to them. Instead I got another scripted event, which is something I see more and more of (and seems to make up the entirety of ME3).

Ideally I would want combat and conversation to both be important parts of the game where your decisions and actions have consequences, and anything that makes that less likely is a bad thing.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 20 mars 2013 - 06:53 .

[Solmanian]

Wow OP, your "phased combat" system sounds extra-terrible. The way you discribe it, it sounds so convulted and over complicated. It's make perfect sense for whoever uses such a flawed system to put a "please let me skip this terrible terrible combat system!" button.
I expect/demand bioware games to have a more engaging combat system, not the kind where you go "oh man, I have to fight this guys? What a chore...".

[Siegdrifa]

IMO, if there is "trash fight" and a need to put an auto resolve combat option, it's mean the combat designer craped his pants.

The core of combat mechanic have to be intresting and enjoyable to the point you don't want to skip ANY combat even on challanging encounter.
Encounter have to be designed to be intresting and not a redoundant, to avoid a quick déjà vu feeling (cf DA2 fail on that matter).

One of the key to make encounter enjoyable (IMO) is to provide multiple possibility to resolve a very same fight, which will allow the player to find his own style and preference, even while playng a very same class.
I won't elaborate more to avoid wall of text.


Anyway, if there is a "skip combat bouton" implemented, it's mean the designers reconize they did a bad job and provide a shamefull solution to cover their inability to come up with an intresting game mechanic (i said it).
I don't know any gamer designer so far that wouldn't feel insulted by players who would like to skip his work.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 20 mars 2013 - 07:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But that ISN'T my entire argument. Some people won't like combat, no matter how you gussy it up...  I agree. But maybe that's because there should be a different gameplay alternative to fighting that the person would enjoy much, much more. Sneaking, or utilizing the environment, or having a context-sensitive speech/persuasion system, etc.

But this is predicated on the assumption that the player wants to make the kind of character that would and could use those skills. People can hate combat as a mechanic and still want to make a combat-oriented character for the sake of roleplaying/storytelling. And resolving a problem through sneaking/persuasion rather than combat might affect the story in ways the player does not want.

Having alternative paths is nice, but doesn't actually solve the problem of combat being too difficult or boring or whatever.

And I know, I know. Someone is going to say something along the lines "then it might as well just be an interactive movie". But if people want to shell out $60 for a movie, that's their own business, and doesn't effect anyone else's personal enjoyment of the game at all.

That point has merit. I do see the logic in what you are saying.

But it is like auto-leveling. Auto-leveling is a feature Bioware offers, for those players who don't want to mess with the stat screen. But that system's execution is purposefully flawed. Because in order to level up any character to do the most DPS (the only real gauge of leveling efficacy in DA2 and, arguably, DA:O), you need only plug your two main stats, with occassionally sprinkling in a point into Cunning to bolster defense.

But that's not what Auto-leveling does. It adds points into Constitution randomly, or points into Dexterity if you are a Mage. It results in a sub-optimal character build. This is because if they made the Auto-level as perfect as what the best power-leveler would do, why WOULDN'T everyone use it? And if everyone is going to be using the same Auto-leveling function, why have leveling at all? After all, since you can't equip any other piece of equipment that is not deemed okay by your class, then you wouldn't have any reason for a Strength-based mage or a high Constitution rogue.

So in the case of Auto-leveling, the team purposefully chose to not make things optimal because it would detract from the benefit of those who realy enjoy min/maxing when leveling. So I think that a "skip combat' button would probably be treated the same way. Maybe you automatically get less loot. Less XP. Heck, maybe you randomly could get assigned an injury. I don't know; I don't have visibility into how they woudl do it. But it could also mean that if there was anything attached to the plot in the combat, that a sub-optimal outcome would be given.

Would that make someone who wants to RP a bad ass combat-focused character not feel that their experience was valid? I suppose it could. 

Wouldn't a narrative difficulty level, where you can one-hit nearly every enemy in the game, be a much better compromise than a button that skips combat completely? That way, Bioware has the option of introducing anything in combat they want - crazy mechanics, scripted events that don't require flipping to a dialogue scene, variable outcomes based on things that happen in combat... all of it can stay on the table for them to consider. A skip combat button doesn't take these things off... but it introduces a barrier to these things, and these are all things we barely see in games as it is.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mars 2013 - 09:38 .

[Ridwan]

No thank you.

[grumpymooselion]

I'd prefer every encounter matter, than have meaningless trash encounters, but that's just me. I would never want to see an auto-resolve button regardless.

[Renmiri1]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I don't know any gamer designer so far that wouldn't feel insulted by players who would like to skip his work.

Yet we skip cutscenes and dialogs all the time. Don't the writers feel offended ?


Perhaps writers are a more mature bunch and know people replay games dozens of times and the repetitiveness of each playthrough can be wearing, not because it is a bad game or bad design. But because humans get tired od endless repetitive work.

I love chocolate but could not eat it every single day for 2 months.

Yet I might play DA every single day for 2 months and I guarantee you no matter how well designed it is, some parts of it will just make me dread replaying it if I have to redo it every single time.

Incidentally, the mandatory combat is one reason I never finished more than 2 complete playthroughs of DAO. It is just too much. I love the game and replay it often but only certain parts of it. Like the Origins and Ostagar. (Curiously the Deep Roads and the Fade  missions  are two I love to replay). The fight with the archdemon ? Had to do it 5 times, to do all the Ultimate Sacrifice yay or nay / who does it permutations, and hated every single one of them (the castle part, Denerim siege was ok).

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 01:03 .

[Siegdrifa]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I don't know any gamer designer so far that wouldn't feel insulted by players who would like to skip his work.

Yet we skip cutscenes and dialogs all the time. Don't the writers feel offended ?


Perhaps writers are a more mature bunch and know people replay games dozens of times and the repetitiveness of each playthrough can be wearing, not because it is a bad game or bad design. But because humans get tired od endless repetitive work.

I love chocolate but could not eat it every single day for 2 months.

Yet I might play DA every single day for 2 months and I guarantee you no matter how well designed it is, some parts of it will just make me dread replaying it if I have to redo it every single time.

Incidentally, the mandatory combat is one reason I never finished more than 2 complete playthroughs of DAO. It is just too much. I love the game and replay it often but only certain parts of it. Like the Origins and Ostagar. (Curiously the Deep Roads and the Fade missions are two I love to replay). The fight with the archdemon ? Had to do it 5 times, to do all the Ultimate Sacrifice yay or nay / who does it permutations, and hated every single one of them (the castle part, Denerim siege was ok).

Cutscenes and dialogues are narrative elements that rarely operate on the active stage; which is subject to redoundancy more often (and players skiping them to avoid being bored since they are put on a passive stance).
I won't claim it is a second rate aspect of the game; i had to fought reeeaaaallly hard when i was working in the video game industry more than 14 years ago to convice others that story, plot devloppement and complex narration was the future and indispensable element of adventure / rpg gaming, and not just a "we don't care we just want to bash mobs, level up and get better gear" crap writting.

However, the core of he game and it's gameplay should never be skipable, because they are on the active stage and engage the player to adapt / think / act; this is the peak were players "play the game" (the player is on an active stance).
Narration, story, and RTC, for all the deep respect and care i have for them, are not on the same axis, but gameplay alone will take you that far.
When you are on a creative field, you quickly realise that many other job related to creation are linked at some point and you need more than one of them to build an amazing oeuvre.

You need fine writting, you need fine graphic, you need fine sounds and musique, you need fine coding. Each have their own "work" culture and speciality, but the "game itself" could live without some of them. What would remain is what i call "the core of the game", and this is why it should never be skipable, because it is the reason that all other "skipable / unneeded elements" make it looks and feels a faaaar better experience.

People wanting to skip cutscene and narrative part on their first playthrough... they either don't give a damn nor have the hability to appreciate a good writting / narration / story telling, or the writters and people working on RTC did a bad job.
When you tell a story, you have to catch your audiance, and a fine piece of writting and story telling can catch the attention of people who would never thought they could care that much for a game (usualy, BioWare strong point IMO).

Anyway, i tryed to make it short but, i'm totaly entitled to my opinion in this matter. But i would gladly agree to desagree with those feeling that i'm wrong.
Video game today is a cross road of many jobs / personnality / experiences; it also means the face of video game as we know it can keep evolving in other kind of media or sub media; by adding new field / jobs in the chaine of production, making notion of "what is the game" even more blurry.
My Ariane thread should stay " the bare mininum for a game to exist, so it's should be unskipable".

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 21 mars 2013 - 02:51 .

[mickey111]

Honestly, Bioware could be the very best combat and gameplay developers on the planet (wasn't far from the truth some 15 years ago) and it would still end up being a drag. Not sure what it is, but I think that the whole combat secitions might be the number 1 cause, followed by the lack of variety. Baldurs Gates combat sections were about as action heavy as DAO, but the whole quest would only take one hour instead of Dragon Ages 2-3 hours (Hi fade, hi Orzammar) before giving the player a rather substantial diversion in the form of exploration or puzzle solving.

If that wasn't it, then it was definitely the combat variety. Basically everything boils down to a combination of dps/tank/defend. None of the major hubs had any type of opposition which required you to think outside of the box like the mind flayers intelligence drain, vampires level drain or the beholders that could easily outmagic ar least 2 of your own soellcasters and were often found in groups, enemies that were only vulnerable to certain types of attacks, enemies that would only target specific player types and the list of unusal enemies.

I could write a dissertation on how the enemy types were numerous and varied enough to make me switch my tactics every hour or two in BGII. Not so in Dragon Age.

Modifié par mickey111, 21 mars 2013 - 03:13 .

[Renmiri1]

Well I hate strategic combat. I raid and tank on WoW and have been doing so for years so my "combat fix" comes from WoW and I get impatient and frustrated with anything less active and twitchy.

On WoW I don't role play. I barely read quest text, I just go grab the 10 bear bums the quest demands, clock it get my gold and my rep and on to the next daily.

WoW has a huge lore and interesting stories and it is not that I dislike it, is a matter of limited playtime. I need the dailies to get gear to raid. (And I need to raid to get better gear.. don't get me started on WoW's hamster wheel for us players -.- )

Conversely, when I'm too burned out to have the right "twitch rate" to raid or play WoW, I crave role play, story, romance and all the fluff of a single player RPG. And again, limited time to play. So skipping a combat system I dislike would be a plus. It isn't a bad combat system and the first 2-3 playthroughs can be really fun. But after that it gets old. And no single player combat can compete with raiding in real time with 25 people trying to down a boss for the 50th time and finally getting it. It is just not in the same universe.

Insane mode ? Pfft.. Do "Alone in the Darkness" while killing Yogg Saron with 25 people and then tell me what is insane mode. There is just nothing like it (twitch ** twitch ** must not.. log.. WoW...)

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 03:34 .

[magechron]

I remember in Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of a New World that WINNING the final boss fight had consequences that got carried out in the ending. One of those few times when you had to force yourself to lose.

[Fast Jimmy]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Well I hate strategic combat. I raid and tank on WoW and have been doing so for years so my "combat fix" comes from WoW and I get impatient and frustrated with anything less active and twitchy.

On WoW I don't role play. I barely read quest text, I just go grab the 10 bear bums the quest demands, clock it get my gold and my rep and on to the next daily.

WoW has a huge lore and interesting stories and it is not that I dislike it, is a matter of limited playtime. I need the dailies to get gear to raid. (And I need to raid to get better gear.. don't get me started on WoW's hamster wheel for us players -.- )

Conversely, when I'm too burned out to have the right "twitch rate" to raid or play WoW, I crave role play, story, romance and all the fluff of a single player RPG. And again, limited time to play. So skipping a combat system I dislike would be a plus. It isn't a bad combat system and the first 2-3 playthroughs can be really fun. But after that it gets old. And no single player combat can compete with raiding in real time with 25 people trying to down a boss for the 50th time and finally getting it. It is just not in the same universe.

Insane mode ? Pfft.. Do "Alone in the Darkness" while killing Yogg Saron with 25 people and then tell me what is insane mode. There is just nothing like it (twitch ** twitch ** must not.. log.. WoW...)

This is just my own, limited opinion here, but... the same thing Survivor did back in 2000 to increasing the amount of crap, stupid and pointless reality TV all over the place on network television is what WoW did to the gaming, particularly the RPG/fantasy industry. I realize that many people play WoW and that it is insanely popular, but lots of people watch The Bachelor, American Idol or Dancing With the Stars. It doesn't mean that reality TV isn't an inherently dumbed down form of media entertainment.

The fact that many people share the same idea that if a game's combat doesn't have twitch mechanics that it is inherently stupid and boring is a widely held idea, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an idea that I believe is rotting the RPG genre to the core.

But... I realize I may be in the extreme minority in saying or thinking so.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 mars 2013 - 10:05 .

[HolyAvenger]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But... I realize I may be in the extreme minority in saying or thinking so.

 

On this I wholeheartedly agree with you. I like fast-paced, fluid combat, but not button-mashing or twitch mechanics.

I also think the whole Healer/Tank/DPS mechanic is BS and I hate how it is infecting SP games. 

[mickey111]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Well I hate strategic combat. I raid and tank on WoW and have been doing so for years so my "combat fix" comes from WoW and I get impatient and frustrated with anything less active and twitchy.

On WoW I don't role play. I barely read quest text, I just go grab the 10 bear bums the quest demands, clock it get my gold and my rep and on to the next daily.

WoW has a huge lore and interesting stories and it is not that I dislike it, is a matter of limited playtime. I need the dailies to get gear to raid. (And I need to raid to get better gear.. don't get me started on WoW's hamster wheel for us players -.- )

Conversely, when I'm too burned out to have the right "twitch rate" to raid or play WoW, I crave role play, story, romance and all the fluff of a single player RPG. And again, limited time to play. So skipping a combat system I dislike would be a plus. It isn't a bad combat system and the first 2-3 playthroughs can be really fun. But after that it gets old. And no single player combat can compete with raiding in real time with 25 people trying to down a boss for the 50th time and finally getting it. It is just not in the same universe.

Insane mode ? Pfft.. Do "Alone in the Darkness" while killing Yogg Saron with 25 people and then tell me what is insane mode. There is just nothing like it (twitch ** twitch ** must not.. log.. WoW...)

If I compared everything to what I've often considered to be the most "insane" (competiting against some of the more successful Team Fortress 2 and Tribes: Ascend players) gaming I've personally experienced and what I've seen in SC: Broodwar (I'm too cowardly to get into BW myself. 12 unit maximum control group and no auto mining? scray thought), well... everything else would be ****. So I try my best to ignore these things when I play new games.

Modifié par mickey111, 21 mars 2013 - 10:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But... I realize I may be in the extreme minority in saying or thinking so.

 

On this I wholeheartedly agree with you. I like fast-paced, fluid combat, but not button-mashing or twitch mechanics.

I also think the whole Healer/Tank/DPS mechanic is BS and I hate how it is infecting SP games. 

I'm not even sure it is an issue of the Healer/Tank/DPS mindset. RPG games have had those roles for decades, in some way, shape or form.

I think the skill cooldown system is to blame, personally. As is the idea of class balancing. The idea that you would want to use your best, most powerful skills/spells in every instance of every combat encounter is a bad one. Things like mana pools that didn't auto-regenerate or even Vancian casting were put in place so that warriors could be the guys you use to mop up mooks with, with mages/clerics/what-have-you were used in a case-by-case basis when the fight demanded it, not every chance they got. 

The fact that you would use pretty much the same tactics on a band of mook bandits as you would on the High Dragon in DA2 is bad. The fact that your mage would use Firestorm to take out giant spiders for the two hundreth time as well as being the spell you would spam against the Harvester is bad.

If spells/skills were saved for truly rainy days, or even lower level skills were used more frequently because of their relative low cost, this would lead to a more judiciuos use of skills in combat and less "kite while I wait for my cooldowns" mentality we see in many RPGs now, including the DA games.

I'm not arguing Vancian casting or mana point systems for DA3, but I would be interested if they tried an approach where using the most powerful skill/spell you have over and over again, while you chip away with Auto Attack while your cooldowns charge is just not part of the experience at all. THAT is what I think so many people find boring - that you do the exact same thing from fight 1 to fight 1,000. Constantly.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 mars 2013 - 11:33 .

[SgtElias]

I wouldn't mind an "auto-resolve" option being present; I probably wouldn't use it myself, but I have no problem with the option being there.

I think the only time I was honestly tempted to use some sort of auto-resolve combat mechanism was during small parts of DA2; I'd be trying to finish up a quests, and every five steps I'd be ambushed by enemies. That was frustrating. Oh, and Origin's random encounters. Same there.

Anyway, sure. Options, options everywhere.

Modifié par SgtElias, 21 mars 2013 - 10:26 .

[Topsider]

I'd definitely skip "boss" encounters like the Ancient Rock Wraith. I thought that was annoying and tedious, just another variation of wave attacks as it cycles through its abilities, while new enemies spawn. When you see the huge health bar you know it's gonna be a repetitive slog.

Enemy parties, similar to your own, are my favourite battles. Examples would be the Twisted Rune in BGII and Nalmissra's group in ToB. They are challenging and fun. I don't like beating on a single enemy which has obscene hitpoints, or endless waves of trash who parachute in.

[Ridwan]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I don't know any gamer designer so far that wouldn't feel insulted by players who would like to skip his work.

Yet we skip cutscenes and dialogs all the time. Don't the writers feel offended ?


Perhaps writers are a more mature bunch and know people replay games dozens of times and the repetitiveness of each playthrough can be wearing, not because it is a bad game or bad design. But because humans get tired od endless repetitive work.

I love chocolate but could not eat it every single day for 2 months.

Yet I might play DA every single day for 2 months and I guarantee you no matter how well designed it is, some parts of it will just make me dread replaying it if I have to redo it every single time.

Incidentally, the mandatory combat is one reason I never finished more than 2 complete playthroughs of DAO. It is just too much. I love the game and replay it often but only certain parts of it. Like the Origins and Ostagar. (Curiously the Deep Roads and the Fade  missions  are two I love to replay). The fight with the archdemon ? Had to do it 5 times, to do all the Ultimate Sacrifice yay or nay / who does it permutations, and hated every single one of them (the castle part, Denerim siege was ok).

Not to sound rude, but who cares about what the writers feel? Look I enjoy like everyone else a good cutscene and a nice story, but there's a reason those are skippable and trash encounters aren't. Because no one wanna see the same scene over and over again, especially if it's a long winded overly dramatic one. Or worse the stupid dream chase part of ME 3, I sincerely hope they don't do anything stupid like that. At least with an unskippable cutscene you can go and take a break.

Now with trash, those will usually always be killed in a different way, cause of the classes, your companions, you also got loot and if you're playing on the hardest difficulty setting you'll get that extra "pump" going on.

Bioware makes video games with heavy stories, they don't make stories with video game elements in it.

[Wulfram]

DA2 really went out of it's way to avoid having a dedicated healer role unless you really really wanted it. And tanking was pretty much unnecessary, too. Though handy if you're using melee rogues and don't want to have to micromanage them

The main distinguishing features between character types in DA2 are AoE vs Single target and Melee vs Ranged, not the MMO style Tank/DPS/Healer trinity.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 mars 2013 - 11:52 .

[HolyAvenger]

I hated how rigidly the combat mechanics enforced holy trinity. Not to mention the companion leveling. Feck off.

More interesting encounter design is certainly somehting that needs to be looked at. One of my wishes is for both DAI and ME4 to steal a page from ME3 MP and have a spawn system that can randomise the enemies. So in one combat encounter you might get 3 swordsman, 2 arches, an assassin and 2 mages. In another playthrough at that point you might 4 swordsman, 1 mage and 3 assassins. It would really liven up the combat and encourage replayability.

[HolyAvenger]

Wulfram wrote...

DA2 really went out of it's way to avoid having a dedicated healer role unless you really really wanted it. And tanking was pretty much unnecessary, too. Though handy if you're using melee rogues and don't want to have to micromanage them

 

I found that quite opposite ot my experience in my playthrough (mix of hardcore and nightmare).