223 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny that people take a "We want a skip combat" option seriously, but if you suggested a "skip story" option would draw a million replies about "dumbing down", " they're catering to the CoD crowd" and the like?

You can already skip story. You don't have to listen to a word anyone says most times in DA games. Sure, you have to make a dialogue decision every once in a while, but that's not really a huge inconvenience. 

So I'd say a Skip Story button is about already here. 

you are not wrong there.

[Renmiri1]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny that people take a "We want a skip combat" option seriously, but if you suggested a "skip story" option would draw a million replies about "dumbing down", " they're catering to the CoD crowd" and the like?

Strawman building much ?

[metatheurgist]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
It is difficult, I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. It basically requires the combat team to be as good as the most veteran player will be after a few months of playing the game before the combat system is even fully operationalized (or require going "back to the drawing board" a number of times after a combat system has been finished). With a game like Monopoly, it is easy (relatively) to devise an AI that plays smart. After all, Monopoly has been out for nearly 100 years. You all will have to devise a system that requires experienced players to think on the fly, while not completely scaring and penalizng novice players who just want to be able to one-hit everything to more on through the story.

I think part of the problem is giving in to the people demanding "Pew! Pew!" options. "My wizard doesn't feel magical if I can't spam magic bolts!". You give someone that option and it ends up being all they use. Wallowing in BG nostalgia again, but one of the most effect tactics in that was to Entangle a mob then sit back and arrow then to death. Felt pretty magical to me.

[Renmiri1]

My druid can still do that on wow, except I use magic bolts not arrows

[Fast Jimmy]

metatheurgist wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
It is difficult, I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. It basically requires the combat team to be as good as the most veteran player will be after a few months of playing the game before the combat system is even fully operationalized (or require going "back to the drawing board" a number of times after a combat system has been finished). With a game like Monopoly, it is easy (relatively) to devise an AI that plays smart. After all, Monopoly has been out for nearly 100 years. You all will have to devise a system that requires experienced players to think on the fly, while not completely scaring and penalizng novice players who just want to be able to one-hit everything to more on through the story.

I think part of the problem is giving in to the people demanding "Pew! Pew!" options. "My wizard doesn't feel magical if I can't spam magic bolts!". You give someone that option and it ends up being all they use. Wallowing in BG nostalgia again, but one of the most effect tactics in that was to Entangle a mob then sit back and arrow then to death. Felt pretty magical to me.

You have quite the list of game creds in your signature. What are the three between Throne of Bhaal and NWN?

[mickey111]

Icewind Dale. Arguably better combat than BGII with more character customization.

[Fast Jimmy]

mickey111 wrote...

Icewind Dale. Arguably better combat than BGII with more character customization.

Ah, right. I did play IWD, just didn't recognize the icons there. Good times. 

[Realmzmaster]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Do we get to see the game auto resolve the combat or does it just skip and show you the result?

Dependent on the game some of them simply gave the results. Others gave a blow by blow account of the battle while the player watched.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny that people take a "We want a skip combat" option seriously, but if you suggested a "skip story" option would draw a million replies about "dumbing down", " they're catering to the CoD crowd" and the like?

I think there's a greater chance of "dumbing down" allegations if we added skip combat.

[LPPrince]

Yeah, I think skipping combat would get the "dumbing down" argument while skipping story would get the "what game/never heard of it" treatment.

[mickey111]

*looks back at OP for the bit that says "skip combat"*
*no results found*

There is an important difference between skipping and autoresovling

Skipping combat suggests that you walk through like it never happened. You could do this as often as you like without hesitation.

Auto resolve is a way of speeding through pay for by giving away a greater number of potions and injury kits than you'd otherwise use if you didn't fast foreward. You can do this as long as you're willing and able to pay the price (it might be more or less than if you'd chosen not to auto resolve... depends entirely on how well you understand how the game is played), but it could be analogous to throwing all of your healing and mana restoratives out the window depending on how it;s implemented.

[Topsider]

I've been playing Stardock's Fallen Enchantress recently and it has an auto resolve button. Granted, this game is more RTS than RPG (a hybrid of sorts) but you are taking a risk auto-resolving unless your group is clearly superior to the enemy. Heroes get injured, weak troops may die (until they level a bit) I think it works quite well actually. I've never felt that the computer "cheated" me, but it's always safer to fight the battles yourself.

[Topsider]

^
Another good feature in Fallen Enchantress is "auto-play" during battles. If you want to speed them up but feel auto resolve is too risky, auto play allows you to watch instead but you can pause and assume control at any point. I imagine the computer uses the same tactics it would during auto-resolve, so the player can correct "mistakes" as they happen. The game is turn-based but it's almost real-time this way.

It would be interesting to see how well 'tactics' controls your entire party in DA. They are decent when used for support, healing, etc, but I doubt their ability in tough battles, especially if obstacles and traps are involved.

[Nightdragon8]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

metatheurgist wrote...

It's been a long time but didn't companions in BG die permanently as a result of combat? 'course you could say that with save games you can erase that consequence just by reloading.

In my experience this was the most common thing that would happen (it's what my friends and I did)

That doesn't diminish the value of the feature, though.  An option not taken has value simply in having been an option.

Agreed.

didn't this pretty much happen in DA2?? I mean you could lose your sibbling in the deeproads if you don't take anders. In fact my first game was like this. (well you lose your sibbling to templars or the circle anyway but still get them back later)

and in fact I debated on wither or not I should reload... and ended up NOT reloading. (still need to do a playthough where Carver goes into the GW tho maybe Ill do that next) 

[Xewaka]

Nightdragon8 wrote...
didn't this pretty much happen in DA2?? I mean you could lose your sibbling in the deeproads if you don't take anders. In fact my first game was like this. (well you lose your sibbling to templars or the circle anyway but still get them back later)
and in fact I debated on wither or not I should reload... and ended up NOT reloading. (still need to do a playthough where Carver goes into the GW tho maybe Ill do that next) 

No, it didn't happen in DA2. All party member deaths in DA2 are plot related. If any party member gets knocked out during gameplay, they get up at the end of the combat. In Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, if a party member died in a random combat, he/she stood dead after combat was finished. You needed to grab his/her stuff from the ground and take him/her to a cleric for resurrection (which wasn't exactly cheap).
That's the difference: One is plot related and will trigger if (and only if) certain conditions are met. The other is  gameplay related, and will happen if the character dies in combat, any combat.

Modifié par Xewaka, 23 mars 2013 - 09:45 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

didn't this pretty much happen in DA2?? I mean you could lose your sibbling in the deeproads if you don't take anders. In fact my first game was like this. (well you lose your sibbling to templars or the circle anyway but still get them back later)

and in fact I debated on wither or not I should reload... and ended up NOT reloading. (still need to do a playthough where Carver goes into the GW tho maybe Ill do that next) 

I think it's different.  When a player is lost in combat, the assumption is typically "they died in a way that isn't related to any sort of plot mechanic"

[Renmiri1]

@Nightdragon8 - Do play with Carver being a Grey Warden, it is my favorite of all the Hawke siblings plot stories. Carver really grows into the GW role ^^

As I said before, I don't want to "skip combat" in my first playthrough. But since I replay my games often, I'd love a way to skip tedious combat in my 2nd-100th pt. Or at least to speed it up. New game + (without dynamic level scaling) works wonders. I break a sweat in the first PT combat and just blast through trash on all other PT.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Nightdragon8 wrote...

didn't this pretty much happen in DA2?? I mean you could lose your sibbling in the deeproads if you don't take anders. In fact my first game was like this. (well you lose your sibbling to templars or the circle anyway but still get them back later)

and in fact I debated on wither or not I should reload... and ended up NOT reloading. (still need to do a playthough where Carver goes into the GW tho maybe Ill do that next) 

I think it's different.  When a player is lost in combat, the assumption is typically "they died in a way that isn't related to any sort of plot mechanic"

I think that helps eliminate any distinction between the plot and the mechanics.  When someone does, it should look like it happened mechanically rather than just being forced upon us in a cutscene.

[Homebound]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny that people take a "We want a skip combat" option seriously, but if you suggested a "skip story" option would draw a million replies about "dumbing down", " they're catering to the CoD crowd" and the like?

I think there's a greater chance of "dumbing down" allegations if we added skip combat.

this tbh. Videogames are videogames. Nobody skips Tetris just to see its cutscenes.

[DeadPoolX]

Homebound wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny that people take a "We want a skip combat" option seriously, but if you suggested a "skip story" option would draw a million replies about "dumbing down", " they're catering to the CoD crowd" and the like?

I think there's a greater chance of "dumbing down" allegations if we added skip combat.

this tbh. Videogames are videogames. Nobody skips Tetris just to see its cutscenes.

For good reason, since Tetris doesn't have any cutscenes.

I think there should be an option to skip combat if the player is having difficulty with it.  For instance, if the player fails twice, an option appears to skip the combat.  In doing so you may miss out on some experience and perhaps some items you could've looted, but at least the game will progress. 

Some people just aren't good at combat, but like role-playing and a good story.  There's no reason they should be penalized because they don't do well with the fighting component of the game.

Personally, I like the combat, but I'm all for more options.  If I had my way, games would have a crapload of options and settings so the player could customize their experience.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I could see this on a game like Ninja Gaiden, where even the easiest of difficulties can be punishing to the uninitiated. But in discussing something like ME3's Narrative difficulty, where it is truly impossible to lose. This allows people who don't like combat to kill enemies with one hit and never worry about suffering any damage. It is, essentially, a God Mode cheat from the old days.

I don't see the need to have a Skip Combat button when the Narrative difficulty accomplishes the same thing, but does not require every encounter to be retooled to determine the outcomes if you were to skip it. Adding such a development tax on each encounter will likely only prevent more unique encounter designs (since extra variables in combat means extra variables to calculate for on the back end if someone skips).

Narrative difficulty solves all of the problems and gives none of he headaches.

[DeadPoolX]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I could see this on a game like Ninja Gaiden, where even the easiest of difficulties can be punishing to the uninitiated. But in discussing something like ME3's Narrative difficulty, where it is truly impossible to lose. This allows people who don't like combat to kill enemies with one hit and never worry about suffering any damage. It is, essentially, a God Mode cheat from the old days.

I don't see the need to have a Skip Combat button when the Narrative difficulty accomplishes the same thing, but does not require every encounter to be retooled to determine the outcomes if you were to skip it. Adding such a development tax on each encounter will likely only prevent more unique encounter designs (since extra variables in combat means extra variables to calculate for on the back end if someone skips).

Narrative difficulty solves all of the problems and gives none of he headaches.

Good point.  I'd forgotten about the Narrative option.  I never took it (neither did my wife, who generally prefers story to combat) because it seemed too easy.  I'm glad it's there for people who really dislike combat, however.

I guess the answer then is to include a Narrative option in DA3.  That might be a little trickier than in ME3, since the DA series has greater variation in combat, but if it all comes down to a "one hit, one kill" solution, it shouldn't matter too much.