809 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

[quote]o Ventus wrote...

[quote]Star fury wrote...

Nope, it looks a lot like a situation in cinema with the advent of sound films, when silent film proponents argued that you don't need sound in movies. 
[/quote]

Except a video game without gameplay is just a collection of cutscenes (if the game includes them). That's why it's a video "game". It has to be at least minutely active on the part of the player to be a game. A film is a series of images recorded by a camera which is viewed by people for entertainment. Sound is not necessary for it to be enjoyed. Having gameplay in a video game IS (it's in the name of the medium).

Hell, Heavy Rain at least has quick time events.[/quote]

Exactly.  Also a video game lets me pick out what my character does.  I've never yet been to a movie where I can decide if Johnny Depp jumps in the water to save someone or leaves the area and lets them sink.  So far, movies are not interactive, video games are.  

As far as the combat goes, An option to skip or auto fight wouldn't be something I use, but I have no problme with it being there.  I did get really frustrated with DA2 Arishok until I belive they fixed it for casual.  There was a you-tube showing Hawke running around to the Benny HIll theme music, I could relate to that.



[/quote]

Modifié par mopotter, 07 juillet 2013 - 07:19 .

[Fredward]

FedericoV wrote...
But honestly I think that the ME3 model wih its "story mode/action mode/rpg mode" solution is wrong. Why? Because those modes challenge the artistic and authorial integrity of a videogame. Games are a whole composed in equal parts by what we can call story, gameplay and art. You can't just remove one part of the equation only because a part of your audience is not interested in it.

That solution turns a game in to a product of mass consuption and it cheapens the experience. I want a sense of value from my games.The interactivity of the medium should be used to enhance the holistic relations between gameplay, art and story and to strenghten the feedback betwenn players and gaming systems. It should not be a justification for a more restrictive and commercial approach.

I was wondering when this argument was gonna show up. It's a very annoying argument. Okay so first you can't explain your concept of what constitutes a game and pretend like it's set in stone. Concepts aren't immutable. They change all the time. So trying to label and sort what a game is supposed to be is doomed from the outset. You're taking your subjective viewpoint about what a game/RPG is and pretending it's objective. And then you're attributing some kind of sanctity to it. Which is what really gets me. The "artistic and authorial integrity" god, really? Really? You're making it sound like the idea of a game exists outside of the creator's intentions. Like it's some perfect ideal they need to catch up to or emulate instead of create. A game doesn't cease to be something because it deviates from your expectations.

Plus you can use this argument for everything. It's the go-to for everyone who doesn't have an actual reason to not do something. Adding cheese VIOLATES the sanctity of a BLT sandwich! Allowing a man to marry a man RUINS marriage between a man and a woman because reasons! A man must work and a woman must be a baby-oven chained to an actual oven or else you DESTROY the nuclear family and the very fabric of reality itself!

None of these things actually mean anything outside of the meaning which you attribute to them. You might like them being those things, you might prefer them remaining that way but it remains your opinion and nothing more.

[someguy1231]

filetemo wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Anyone in this thread who supports an "auto-resolve" option for combat but has complained about Bioware's RPGs being "streamlined" or "dumbed down" is a complete and utter hypocrite.

how so? the combat's been dumbed down, therefore I don't want to play it.

And if your solution is to skip the combat altogether rather than make the combat better, then you're dumbing down the game as a whole even more.

[filetemo]

someguy1231 wrote...

filetemo wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Anyone in this thread who supports an "auto-resolve" option for combat but has complained about Bioware's RPGs being "streamlined" or "dumbed down" is a complete and utter hypocrite.

how so? the combat's been dumbed down, therefore I don't want to play it.

And if your solution is to skip the combat altogether rather than make the combat better, then you're dumbing down the game as a whole even more.

it is not a solution, you said we were hypocrites and I proved you we weren't.

Besides, once the game is released there isn't any possible solution anymore, the game is what it is. Skipping combat is a simply more choice.

And if you wish we can reduce it to a purely semanthic question. Would you allow a super easy mode where everybody dies in one hit? Yes? How is that any different to a "skip combat altogether"?

[filetemo]

And for the record, I've been advocating for "cinematic mode with no combat" since DA:O. Unlock the mode after beating the main game, like if it was some sort of "new game +".

[Realmzmaster]

Jinx1720 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Seriously folks, part of the charm of the rpg is the combat. Getting new loot, gaining experience and putting points in the stats to make your character better in combat and so on. Why skip that?

Planescape Torment is one of THE classic PC RPGs and combat definitely wasn't what made the game appealing.

As for the leveling aspect: the dialogues and choices provided MUCH more XP than the combats.

It is also one of the classic cRPGs that did not sell well. I like PT but PT was a departure from the norm in both gameplay and setting. Sales suffered because of that. PT was never a financial success.

[MisanthropePrime]

For everyone who's asking for a game sans combat, I gotta ask if any of you have played a japanese visual novel? It's basically the same concept.


I'd be fine with a game LIKE dragon age with the combat removed if the dialogue system was more intricate and still tied to statistics. But even in DAO you really only had one stat that fed into one skill that influenced discussion. I'd play a game that was like Fallout New Vegas with the combat removed, where your points in a variety of fields (science, explosives, medicine, etc.) influenced the choices you could make, but that would necessitate an entirely different game and not just taking a game whose systems are already designed with combat in mind taken out and leaving just a neutered dialogue tree as the meat of the game.

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...
It is also one of the classic cRPGs that did not sell well. I like PT but PT was a departure from the norm in both gameplay and setting. Sales suffered because of that. PT was never a financial success.

I've always found it funny that old cRPG fans talk up the greatness of D&D, when the only commercially succesful games used terrible ruleset based on of a wargame whose key feature is robbing the dead. 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 juillet 2013 - 09:45 .

[Mothalickaz]

Lol no need to argue over something like this. Different strokes for different folks.

Personally, I loved the combat in BOTH DA games, Origins was more tactical, while DA 2's was more fast paced and in your face. Origins combat tests your wits while DA 2's tests your hand-eye coordination(if you want to call it that, but you get my point).

I think since DA is so story oriented, just like every other Bioware game, and you can skip dialogue, then you should be able to skip the combat as well. That is just my opinion, it would allow for both types of players to enjoy the game for their own personal tastes.

BUT, I think the combat is what made DA such a good game. The combat contributed to the story, because you felt yourself becoming more powerful, and defeating giant ogres and malificar were satisfying. Without combat, I don't think the end result of origins would have been as satisfying as it was. Because through the whole game, you battled your way through caves and towers to rescue friends and destroy darkspawn. If the game was just dialogue, then you wouldn't have understood the threat that the darkspawn posed.

But, anyways, yes, that would be a nice choice. But if it doesn't happen don't get all butt hurt. This is a video game, not a movie or a book. There is usually more to a game than dialogue, no matter how good the story is.

[Realmzmaster]

In Exile wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
It is also one of the classic cRPGs that did not sell well. I like PT but PT was a departure from the norm in both gameplay and setting. Sales suffered because of that. PT was never a financial success.

I've always found it funny that old cRPG fans talk up the greatness of D&D, when the only commercially succesful games used terrible ruleset based on of a wargame whose key feature is robbing the dead. 

I never thought D & D had a great rule set or even a good one. It was a cobbled together mish mash built on top of the Chainmail wargame ruleset. D & D is the granddaddy of all rpgs and the agruably the first commercially available. CRPGs were constructed to bring (somewhat) the tabletop experience to the computer. The developers used what they played in P N P format. Some games used variants but all relied on D & D for inspiration.

[snackrat]

I like to play branching RPGs over and over with different characters that make different choices. DA2's combat wasn't particularly interesting to start with. In subsequent playthroughs, unless I was trying a new class/build or fighting a boss I would just run a 'killallhostiles' script. And it STILL took ages for combat resolution because I have to do that FIVE TIMES A BATTLE thanks to the wave mechanic.

[addiction21]

filetemo wrote...

And for the record, I've been advocating for "cinematic mode with no combat" since DA:O. Unlock the mode after beating the main game, like if it was some sort of "new game +".

1. The combat in DA:O was never "smart" anyway so I don't see how its been dumbed down.

2.Why not provide that option at the start of every game?Or is it another "I had to walk up hill in two feet of snow both ways to school" sort of thing?

Those that prefer something else then you must first suffer thru your experience.

[filetemo]

addiction21 wrote...

filetemo wrote...

And for the record, I've been advocating for "cinematic mode with no combat" since DA:O. Unlock the mode after beating the main game, like if it was some sort of "new game +".

2.Why not provide that option at the start of every game?.

yes, yes, I'm in favor of that too. 

That would allow for a quick cinematic playthrough to upload fast to youtube and see different outcomes of the quests and endings.

Wait...maybe that's precisely why bioware wouldn't want a cinematic mode 
 

[NUM13ER]

From a budget perspective why put so much effort into creating a combat system, the gameplay of a game if you will, and then allowing players to circumvent massive amounts of content from the get go?

If one had to have the option a new game plus makes more sense as a lot of people would be replaying it more for alternative story paths rather than gameplay. Unless the gameplay is just that damn good.

However having seen the result of being able to fast forward or skip through aspects of games in various titles, the most reviled being Alone In The Dark, it just seems to remove all sense of achievement. Not to mention the not so small issue of removing the gameplay aspect, you know the core principle, of a videogame.

Isn't an easy mode more than enough?

Modifié par NUM13ER, 07 juillet 2013 - 11:24 .

[addiction21]

filetemo wrote...


That would allow for a quick cinematic playthrough to upload fast to youtube and see different outcomes of the quests and endings.

Wait...maybe that's precisely why bioware wouldn't want a cinematic mode 
 

That happened within the first day or two anyway no matter the game or "modes" available.

[In Exile]

NUM13ER wrote...

From a budget perspective why put so much effort into creating a combat system, the gameplay of a game if you will, and then allowing players to circumvent massive amounts of content from the get go?

Why put so much energy in cutscenes if players can skip them? Obviously, the only solution is unskippable cutscenes.

[The Red Onion]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...

This is a legit counterargument to my point about having a franchise striking out and make a genre of its own; being the only game in town "negates service." Whether I agree is of secondary importance.

More gameplay options allows for more dialog options, too, because they can give you different setups and sets of choices based on whether you decided to sneak or argue or hack or magic your way through.  Everybody wins.  The people who don't want to do combat (or don't want to do much combat) can enjoy the game their way.  The people who enjoy combat but get bored of it on their 5th playthrough can try something different if they feel like it.

It might be more expensive but it also might NOT be to make your game this way, because there's more incentive to code up some kind of robust random encounter system that can do most of the combat heavy lifting instead of hand-placing every single encounter.  The complex scripted encounters get better because the combat designers and scriptors aren't exhausted from spending all day laying out 347 totally inconsequential bandit fights.  People who REALLY love combat benefit because now there's an ability to put in an endless arena fight system or outdoor areas where you can go hunt for trophies or other progressive-but-potentially-endless overland objectives.  Systems like that radically reduce your incremental costs so it's TONS easier to put out mods and bonus packs and DLC which in turn prolong the life of your game and bring in more revenue.  But if all you're building for is static one-time events, it's really hard to come up with a rationale to spend the time and money to create an actual FRAMEWORK.  Moving your home furnishings around is a lot of work but you don't invest in a forklift because you don't do it that often.

I agree the "random" encounters are actually non-randomized and thus possibly hand-made from the devs point of view.

I myself am actually for this idea of making a toon that can debate her way through the game.

[Demx]

If you want to skip all combat, then I suggest a visual novel. You pick certain dialogue options, and the characters react to what you say or do. Skipping certain battles sounds like a "Run" button. Which is fine, but you shouldn't be able to run away from every battle.

[GithCheater]

How often would you use Narrative Mode if it was available in DAI?

Poll:


http://social.biowar...77/polls/46388/

Modifié par GithCheater, 08 juillet 2013 - 01:04 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Nefla wrote...

If the combat in DA2 didn't suck balls and make up like 80% of the game then maybe I wouldn't want to skip it.

osbornep wrote...

I know this will never happen, but if it were up to me, I'd say the games should just have far fewer, but more meaningful encounters.

I don't use the word "hate" easily, but I hated the combat in DA2. I really hated just about everything about it. I hated the asthetics, I hated the encounter design (and I use that term loosely) and the wave mechanics, I hated how it disconnected me from the setting and story and made it hard for me to even try to take those seriously. It was boring, tedious and broke my immersion.

Normally I finish a game on the normal or hard difficulty for the first time, and in later playthroughs make my way through higher difficulty settings (if available). DA2 was probably the first game I had to turn down the difficulty to the lowest setting in order to even motivate myself to start a second playthrough (and even do so during parts of the first).

Combat is and will likely always be an integral part of most CRPGs. I know that and I'm generally fine with that. I just really appreciate games that at least try to regularly offer alternatives, and that treat fighting to the death as something not every being in the setting just casually accepts as a neccessity. Of course the setting, tone and themes of the game should influence how combat is treated.

Buuuuut... even if both DA games had combat I was perfectly fine with (DA:O's combat wasn't perfect either) I could still relate to the OP's wish. Combat for me isn't the only form of "gameplay" in a BioWare game, and I don't see how an OPTION for those who do not enjoy it that much would hurt those who do.

Well, I actually do understand those who fear a scenario with the devs not putting the same amount of effort into designing combat if it's something that isn't absolutely mandatory for every player, but I'd trust in the devs not to do that. Then again, dialogue choices were optional in ME3 and even if you chose to have them there weren't much left, so maybe doubt is appropriate...

[DialupToaster]

I always wanted the option to play the game without actually playing it! It's like a movie only crappy looking!
So honestly, I have to ask... why not just youtube it?

[Volus Warlord]

Plaintiff wrote...

Films are all story

Micheal Bay would like a word with you.

[Plaintiff]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Films are all story

Micheal Bay would like a word with you.

I didn't say they were good stories.

[BlueMagitek]

You could play on casual, that tends to end combat quickly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Why put so much energy in cutscenes if players can skip them? Obviously, the only solution is unskippable cutscenes.

I fear the day this actually happens.

It would actually solve a UI problem the games currently have (it's not possible top distinguich between conversation cinematics and cutscene cinematics, so attempts to skip single lines in conversation can sometimes skip entire cutscenes by accident).

But simply removing options is never a good idea.