223 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Developers aren't tying consequences to combat anymore and its making games weaker for it.

You say "anymore." Has that really happened much in the past?

I could maybe see something like Fallout (especially the first, before the timer gets patched out) in that getting heavily wounded means having to rest to recuperate. How common was consequences in combat that wasn't "kill everyone or die yourself?"

Off the top of my head, I've got a couple that I'm positive you're aware of, Allen.  Both  occur in Planescape: Torment.   They're story-based, and meant to punish   needless murderous behavior.  Both will prematurely end your  game  (albeit with unique dialogue/cutscenes).   

1) Killing Pharod before giving him the bronze sphere; and
2) Killing Trias when he's in the Curst Prison.

I bring these two examples up because they represent something that  has indeed been taken away from gamers over the years and is no longer existant in Modern RPGs:  The ability to   Fail  the main questline  by being too violent -   To make a stupid decision that leads  to you,  literally, botching the  main plot and the storyline actually recognizing that you did.  Nowadays this  can't happen because developers have decided to "idiot-proof" their games' main plot.  Either they make plot-critical characters  immortal (skyrim), or they flat out take away your ability to even attack plot-critical characters before the specifically assigned time where the story dictates they may  be killed (Witcher, Dragon age).

I totally understand why developers would want to do this, but  *the* point remains.  The player should be allowed to mess up by making a terrible decision, and the game should recognize this decision.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[imbs]

people who genuinely want a skip combat button shouldnt be playing the game in the first place if you ask me. Might as well ask for a skip playing the video game button.

Combat and gameplay should be the(or one of the) main reason for anyone playing a video game. If you are there for the story then there are far superior stories, characters and plots all over the place in the form of books, films, VNs, television.

[MichaelStuart]

Any combat, regardless of how fun or challenging, should not be the main focus of any game unless combat is the sole point of such.
Combat should be nothing more than a obstacle in the way of what ever objective the player is trying to achieve. Game design should not force a player to go though a obstacle when a option to go round can be added.
But if people just want to skip past obstacle and move on to the next one. Let them.
The point of any game is to have fun, and forcing people to do something they find boring just makes the game a failure.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 21 mars 2013 - 07:33 .

[Topsider]

imbs wrote...

people who genuinely want a skip combat button shouldnt be playing the game in the first place if you ask me. Might as well ask for a skip playing the video game button.

Combat and gameplay should be the(or one of the) main reason for anyone playing a video game. If you are there for the story then there are far superior stories, characters and plots all over the place in the form of books, films, VNs, television.

Maybe people like to control the story, and combat is just a distraction? Video games are different to books, films, television, since none of those allow you to create a character and make choices that affect the outcome. The player is in charge and it feels great.

Skipping combat is not desirable, but encounters in recent Bioware games have become painful. Single targets with massive health, a "unique" attack that is annoying (Corypheus), and waves especially. If they aren't fun, I'd skip them like I use the fast-forward button on my remote.

[SongstressKitsune]

I'd much prefer a removal of "wave" combat to a "skip combat" button. I enjoy combat itself, but waves just made it frustrating.

I don't mind "phases" in boss fights, since they're...well, boss fights, but slaughtering my way through dozens of gang members just walking across Hightown at night got really, really annoying.

[metatheurgist]

Topsider wrote...
Maybe people like to control the story, and combat is just a distraction? Video games are different to books, films, television, since none of those allow you to create a character and make choices that affect the outcome. The player is in charge and it feels great.

There was a thread a few years back concerning the definition of RPG. Originally it referred to a game where you assume a character but are bound by the character's limitations. People decided that was boring and they wanted to use their own 1337 skills to beat the game instead of playing a character. So an RPG became an action button masher where the character was a puppet being strung along by a controller. Now people are bored of combat all together and want it removed entirely. Seems the definition of RPG continues to evolve. One day it'll evolve to the point where I won't play them anymore.

[imbs]

Topsider wrote...

Maybe people like to control the story, and combat is just a distraction? Video games are different to books, films, television, since none of those allow you to create a character and make choices that affect the outcome. The player is in charge and it feels great.

No problem. Play a different video game. Not enjoying gameplay in a video game is akin to not enjoying the writing style of a book. Just pick up a different book.

[craigdolphin]

I'm just not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand I totally support giving players the choice to skip a part of the game they dislike. I see no reason why combat should be treated differently than the conversation system in this regard. Both are core game mechanics for an rpg, and if it's ok to skip one, it should be ok to skip the other.

However, I'm not sure that this wouldn't make for less incentive for the devs to fix some of the 'bad' (IMO) aspects of the combat experience that were introduced in DA2 (or even DAO). If they could just say 'u don't like it? skip it!' instead of making the combat fun for players like me then that would suck as I generally like combat in my rpgs.

And to be clear, I'm talking mainly about things like the lack of a tactical camera, the broken auto-attack feature (why can't my controlled character not auto-aquire a new target when their current target dies....especially when the encounter design now emphasizes dozens of wimpy opponents who seem to die quicker than you can select a new foe), the healing potion cooldown, the waves, and the excessively unrealistic/acrobatic/silly combat animations (particularly for rogues and warriors, mages were okay). I dislike the new ecounter design balance (many wimpy opponents versus fewer tougher oponents) but I'm not going to spit the dummy over it so long as the overall experience doesn't make it a mindless clickfest like DA2's was.

If the devs don't actually make the combat fun/tactical again, I'd probably end up using the hypothetical auto-resolve button myself as being the lesser of two evils; even though I'd prefer to play and enjoy the combat sections.

[Topsider]

imbs wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Maybe people like to control the story, and combat is just a distraction? Video games are different to books, films, television, since none of those allow you to create a character and make choices that affect the outcome. The player is in charge and it feels great.

No problem. Play a different video game. Not enjoying gameplay in a video game is akin to not enjoying the writing style of a book. Just pick up a different book.

What if someone loves the story but hates the combat? Does that mean they should never consider buying that game, even if they'd like to? Include a "skip combat" button and maybe they would? A win for them, and no loss to others. It's optional.

I don't hate combat - however, it's obvious that tactics and strategy are less important these days. It's all about action. Bosses have enormous health because they are mindless creatures, literally. No AI to speak of. I think most people would appreciate "intelligent" combat, but not button mashing for 10 minutes because the enemy has a million hitpoints.

[Fast Jimmy]

In light of the argument of people saying "you can skip dialogue, why not combat?" I have a certain line of logic.

You can only skip dialogue UP TO A POINT. That point being when player input is needed. You can skip right up to the point where your character has to say something, or make a choice.

In the ME series, you can't skip past scenes where a Paragon/Renegade Interrupt occurs. In he DA games, you can't skip past a decision on the dialogue wheel.

Bioware games have, occasionally, had a decision for the player to make during combat. It hasn't been often, or it may have not even registered to some players that you were making a decision... but actions (or lack thereof) had impact into how things played out.

Just like skipping decisions in dialogue isn't something the game should let you do, skipping decisions in combat shouldn't be allows either. The problem is that Bioware doesn't give you many chances to do this (only one or two in DA:O, only one in the entire ME series that I can recall, none for DA2). If you added a feature to completely skip combat, then the number of these choices will remain as zero for all time.

I'd rather Bioware work to make combat tie more into the plot at more opportunities rather than close the door entirely because people find combat boring. An easy mode, sure... but to skip combat entirely means that no fight can ever involve a decision that impacts the story/game.

[Cloaking_Thane]

ME 3 had a "story mode"

and games now a days on easy are tantamount to a skip combat button to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Casual in DA2 still made combat monotonous. Arguably more monotonous, as nothing you did mattered (the uncontrolled characters would happily kill everything themselves). If DA3 offers combat at DA2's frequency, I would support the option to skip (auto-resolve) combat.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Casual in DA2 still made combat monotonous. Arguably more monotonous, as nothing you did mattered (the uncontrolled characters would happily kill everything themselves). If DA3 offers combat at DA2's frequency, I would support the option to skip (auto-resolve) combat.

E tu, Sylvius?

[Cloaking_Thane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Casual in DA2 still made combat monotonous. Arguably more monotonous, as nothing you did mattered (the uncontrolled characters would happily kill everything themselves). If DA3 offers combat at DA2's frequency, I would support the option to skip (auto-resolve) combat.

Does it take away an ability to fail at that point?

Understanding that resolve does not = win, but in general I think that's how most people would interperet it.

[zyntifox]

imbs wrote...

people who genuinely want a skip combat button shouldnt be playing the game in the first place if you ask me. Might as well ask for a skip playing the video game button.

Combat and gameplay should be the(or one of the) main reason for anyone playing a video game. If you are there for the story then there are far superior stories, characters and plots all over the place in the form of books, films, VNs, television.

I don't play video games for the combat and gameplay, especially not Bioware games. I play games to create a character and roleplay him/her within the bounds of the story. I read books more than i play video games but when i get the chance to play a game that lets me shape the protagonist of the story, which is something DA:O does amazingly, i usually get more entertainment from said story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cstaf wrote...

I don't play video games for the combat and gameplay, especially not Bioware games.

I used to.  I love the gameplay in many BioWare games.  I think the combat in DAO (and NWN, and BG) is fun on its own.

But I couldn't stand DA2's combat, so I would like to have been able to skip it.

[philippe willaume]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Casual in DA2 still made combat monotonous. Arguably more monotonous, as nothing you did mattered (the uncontrolled characters would happily kill everything themselves). If DA3 offers combat at DA2's frequency, I would support the option to skip (auto-resolve) combat.

Does it take away an ability to fail at that point?

Understanding that resolve does not = win, but in general I think that's how most people would interperet it.

In the current states of affair, yes it does and that a direct result of combat being a mindless slug fest and that the easier the difficulty the more the PC sluging is effective and the less the ennemy sluging is.

and in fact, skip combat button can only result in a win, as the aletrnative would be to play the combat which defeat the purpose of the skip combat button.
So a console type kill all ennmy or a one hit and die ennemy is de facto the same thing just dressed differently.

that being said if we have a skip "combat button" combat accesibility is not a restricting factor.
so the combat can be designed to tactically challenging and difficult and not being differentiated by how long it takes to kill the boss, 

Those like me  who like combat will used the "normal" combat. people who don't like combat will use the "skip combat" mode.

phil

[philippe willaume]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

I don't play video games for the combat and gameplay, especially not Bioware games.

I used to.  I love the gameplay in many BioWare games.  I think the combat in DAO (and NWN, and BG) is fun on its own.

But I couldn't stand DA2's combat, so I would like to have been able to skip it.

yeap.....

[MichaelStuart]

Jayne126 wrote...

Might as well add a pause and play forward/backward button.

I would support those options.

[Renmiri1]

imbs wrote...

people who genuinely want a skip combat button shouldnt be playing the game in the first place if you ask me. Might as well ask for a skip playing the video game button.

Combat and gameplay should be the(or one of the) main reason for anyone playing a video game. If you are there for the story then there are far superior stories, characters and plots all over the place in the form of books, films, VNs, television.

But they are not interactive.

And there are far better combat simulators than RPG. For all tastes. I am partial to twitch action fast paced button mashing so my "combat fix" comes from WoW raiding. Nothing in any single player game ever came near the fun of raiding with live people.

If you favor cerebral strategy based combat, there are also much better titles than an RPG. No game AI can beat a live player who is skilled. RTS games come to mind.

Boggles the mind but RPG games are famous for ROLE PLAYING not for combat. Who would have guessed ?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Renmiri1 wrote...

imbs wrote...

people who genuinely want a skip combat button shouldnt be playing the game in the first place if you ask me. Might as well ask for a skip playing the video game button.

Combat and gameplay should be the(or one of the) main reason for anyone playing a video game. If you are there for the story then there are far superior stories, characters and plots all over the place in the form of books, films, VNs, television.

But they are not interactive.

And there are far better combat simulators than RPG. For all tastes. I am partial to twitch action fast paced button mashing so my "combat fix" comes from WoW raiding. Nothing in any single player game ever came near the fun of raiding with live people.

If you favor cerebral strategy based combat, there are also much better titles than an RPG. No game AI can beat a live player who is skilled. RTS games come to mind.

Boggles the mind but RPG games are famous for ROLE PLAYING not for combat. Who would have guessed ?

Combat is as much an opportunity for roleplaying as is dialogue or exploration, though.  Or, at least, it can be in RPGs.

This is why I object to any twitch elements in RPG combat (like shooter combat, or even RTS combat), as those twitch elements interfere with rolepaying.

The best providers of good roleplaying combat are typically turn-based strategy games, except that games designed around strategy rather than roleplaying tend to be punishingly difficult, and if you're roleplaying your way through combat you might not always be choosing optimal strategies.

[AlanC9]

Yrkoon wrote...
Off the top of my head, I've got a couple that I'm positive you're aware of, Allen.  Both  occur in Planescape: Torment.   They're story-based, and meant to punish   needless murderous behavior.  Both will prematurely end your  game  (albeit with unique dialogue/cutscenes).   

1) Killing Pharod before giving him the bronze sphere; and
2) Killing Trias when he's in the Curst Prison.

I bring these two examples up because they represent something that  has indeed been taken away from gamers over the years and is no longer existant in Modern RPGs:  The ability to   Fail  the main questline  by being too violent -   To make a stupid decision that leads  to you,  literally, botching the  main plot and the storyline actually recognizing that you did.

I don't think  these two are actually on-topic for the thread. We're talking about combat performance and a "skip combat" button, not the choice to engage in combat. A skip combat button would have left the Pharod and Trias sequences intact.

OTOH, your more general point of idiot-proofing is very much on-topic. It's quite rare to have a quest you can fail. ME2 had a couple of failable LMs, but you couldn't fail those in combat. It's even rarer to have a quest you can fail through bad combat performance. TW1 has a few -- the Vesna Hood escort mission comes to mind. (Abigail can also get killed in the Beast battle, but that isn't a quest per se)

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 mars 2013 - 09:37 .

[Realmzmaster]

I have read the posts. I see posters asking for an auto resolve button and confusing it with an auto win button. With a true auto resolve button the party can still lose the encounter.Two old games from the 1985 and 1986 : Wizard's Crown and Eternal Dagger had auto-resolve buttons. Those buttons were not auto win buttons. The player had to make sure that his/her party could beat the enemy before even considering using this button. If the player miscalculated the party's strength versus the enemy's strength the party could lose party members to death. The player was then given the option to continue the fight either using auto resolve again or manually taking control of the fight. The player was also given the option to retreat (if possible). Other games have auto resolve buttons like Mount & Blade and Age of Wonders but it requires the player to know when he/she has the advantage in strength.

There is a fine difference between auto resolve and auto win. Auto resolve has a chance of failure.

Someone mentioned BG. Yes in BG you could die and the player could re-load a save game except the battles where characters would die were usually tough fought battles. It was better at times to take the victory and find a way to resurrect the dead party members than re-do the battle. That choice was left to the player. Auto heal removes any semblance of that choice.

[Rawgrim]

Topsider wrote...

imbs wrote...

Topsider wrote...

Maybe people like to control the story, and combat is just a distraction? Video games are different to books, films, television, since none of those allow you to create a character and make choices that affect the outcome. The player is in charge and it feels great.

No problem. Play a different video game. Not enjoying gameplay in a video game is akin to not enjoying the writing style of a book. Just pick up a different book.

What if someone loves the story but hates the combat? Does that mean they should never consider buying that game, even if they'd like to? Include a "skip combat" button and maybe they would? A win for them, and no loss to others. It's optional.

I don't hate combat - however, it's obvious that tactics and strategy are less important these days. It's all about action. Bosses have enormous health because they are mindless creatures, literally. No AI to speak of. I think most people would appreciate "intelligent" combat, but not button mashing for 10 minutes because the enemy has a million hitpoints.

If you dislike combat, the rpg genre is not for you.