809 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you play on "Casual" or ME3's "Narrative", the fights are already so easy that you don't need much tactics or coordination. Some players just don't care for being challenged that way, and the games already accomodate them.

If they are as easy as you claim, what is taking so long to finish them?

As for the "missing" exposition, most fights in games erupt out of nothing with no exposition. Also, I'm not proposing to skip combat encounters, but only to skip the combat itself.

Wait, the actual combat is supposed to be exposition.  We are supposed to learn the capabilities, temperments, threat level, and overall character of the bad guys during these fights.  Similarly in an ideal world, we learn about ourselves when pushed into a crisis situation, whether it was some new toy we found in a cave, some latent abiliity, or a better appreciation for our companions for how they conduct themselves fighting along side us.  We are also supposed to learn about the world around us.  Maybe there are non-combatants nearby and through the NPCs interaction with them (e.g. you paladin buddy urges us to aid them, the supposedly mysterious evil figure lets them go and hints maybe she is not so evil).  If the bad guy is a blood mage, I want to see him sacrificing his minions and using mind-control on my allies.  None of this is possible under your "ultra-fast" button.  If you are going to tell me that your button will not make much difference because such exposition is rare in CRPGs, I am going to repeat you are missing the core problem, combat is poorly thought out and executed and your solution does not address the issue of people who want to play the combat suffereing through poorly designed combat mechanics and execution..

And you still have not address the problem with resource management that your "ultra fast" button creates.

I'm not saying the problem can't be mitigated by other mechanisms, but if you have a story-driven game where dialogue and interaction is a significant part of the gameplay, and also combat far in excess of what's needed for the story to work (which is the standard for CRPGs), you will inevitably have people who love the story but hate the excessive amount of combat. It makes sense to accommodate them. Everyone wins. The "combat players" still have their challenge if they want, the "story players" are happy, and the game will sell better.

I was not talking about mitigation.  The "pointless" combats in BG1 are often over in 15 seconds.  Named enemies rarely took more than 60.  That's *resolved*.  And what exactly is a "story-driven game?"  Are those the RPGs "combat players" don't really like? 

Everybody does not win with your design because we still have inane combat mechanics and pointless encounters the developers don't need to prioritize intergrating into the actual game narrative bc/ they can simply provide a band-aid over the problem for people who dislike combat.  Meanwhile the people who like challenges are stuck with pisspoor mechanics and repetitive, mindless encounters.  The designers won't put in exposition-related combat because the Jennifer Helpers who care about that stuff won't ever see it.  The game would also lack a logical resource management system.

As a sidenote:
As for cooldown mechanics, you need some way to control the balance of special abilities.

Then why do we have mana and stamina?

Hmm...I wonder if it's possible to create an "x times per combat encounter" mechanism.

It's possible, 4th edition D&D tried it.  Of course they never answered why my highly trained warrior could only deliver one "wolf's fang strike" per encounter.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 12 juillet 2013 - 02:40 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Joy Divison wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you play on "Casual" or ME3's "Narrative", the fights are already so easy that you don't need much tactics or coordination. Some players just don't care for being challenged that way, and the games already accomodate them.

If they are as easy as you claim, what is taking so long to finish them?

You obviously have not been reading the posts. Anyway, even if you haven't, you ought to know that easy does not necessarily have to mean quick.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Actually back in 1985 and 1986 SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc)  put out two games that had auto resolve Wizard's Crown and  its sequel Eternal Dagger. There are others but those are the two that come to mind right away.

If I recall correctly, a combat encounter in Wizard's Crown routinely took half an hour.

So it's an excellent example.  The OP's request is not for easier combat, but for combat that doesn't take so long.

[Joy Divison]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you play on "Casual" or ME3's "Narrative", the fights are already so easy that you don't need much tactics or coordination. Some players just don't care for being challenged that way, and the games already accomodate them.

If they are as easy as you claim, what is taking so long to finish them?

You obviously have not been reading the posts. Anyway, even if you haven't, you ought to know that easy does not necessarily have to mean quick.

It was a rhetorical question.  The answer is the poor drawn-out combat mechanics that are inherent in many of the CRPGs, of which DA2 is a particuarly egregious offender, something a button to skip combat does not solve and make everyone happy as the poster claims.

[Ieldra]

Joy Divison wrote...
If they are as easy as you claim, what is taking so long to finish them?

Read the OP. As DA2 shows, easy does not mean fast.

Wait, the actual combat is supposed to be exposition.  We are supposed to learn the capabilities, temperments, threat level, and overall character of the bad guys during these fights.  Similarly in an ideal world, we learn about ourselves when pushed into a crisis situation, whether it was some new toy we found in a cave, some latent abiliity, or a better appreciation for our companions for how they conduct themselves fighting along side us.  We are also supposed to learn about the world around us.  Maybe there are non-combatants nearby and through the NPCs interaction with them (e.g. you paladin buddy urges us to aid them, the supposedly mysterious evil figure lets them go and hints maybe she is not so evil).  If the bad guy is a blood mage, I want to see him sacrificing his minions and using mind-control on my allies.  None of this is possible under your "ultra-fast" button.  If you are going to tell me that your button will not make much difference because such exposition is rare in CRPGs, I am going to repeat you are missing the core problem, combat is poorly thought out and executed and your solution does not address the issue of people who want to play the combat suffereing through poorly designed combat mechanics and execution.

Ah, you mean combat mechanics exposition. Well, if you play on Casual already none of that is going to matter, nor does it necessarily interest the player. As for interrupts of the combat scene to have a dialogue with the enemies or suchlike, technically that's two combat scenes with a piece of dialogue in-between, so you'd have to use the "ultra-fast button twice since it only affects the current combat scene, and you won't miss the dialogue..

And you still have not address the problem with resource management that your "ultra fast" button creates.

Resource management? You mean consumables or suchlike? If you're already playing on Casual (or even Normal), you won't need much of that in the first place. And if you're speaking of loot, well, if the "ultra-fast button" just kills the remaining enemies then you'll have the loot right there.

I was not talking about mitigation.  The "pointless" combats in BG1 are often over in 15 seconds.  Named enemies rarely took more than 60.  That's *resolved*.  And what exactly is a "story-driven game?"  Are those the RPGs "combat players" don't really like?

(1) One of those may be short, but 100 add up.
(2) And a story driven game is one focused on a story as opposed to open-world exploration.
(3) I was not talking about BG1 but about DA2.
(4) It's also a matter of principle. If dialogue can be skipped, the same should apply to combat. I resent the implication that combat is more integral to an RPG than character interaction. In fact, I could make the point that character interaction is more integral. Combat serves the story, but it's just an accessory, characters and plot are what it's all about in the end.

Everybody does not win with your design because we still have inane combat mechanics and pointless encounters the developers don't need to prioritize intergrating into the actual game narrative bc/ they can simply provide a band-aid over the problem for people who dislike combat.  Meanwhile the people who like challenges are stuck with pisspoor mechanics and repetitive, mindless encounters.  The designers won't put in exposition-related combat because the Jennifer Helpers who care about that stuff won't ever see it.

I've explained that above. Combat itself doesn't give you any exposition except about combat mechanics. Take ME3 as an example. How are we introduced to the enemy Engineer's class ability? In a cutscene before combat start, not in combat. And that's how it should be because that way it has narrative impact.

The game would also lack a logical resource management system.

I have yet to see an RPG where resources were any kind of problem in lower difficulties.

It's possible, 4th edition D&D tried it.  Of course they never answered why my highly trained warrior could only deliver one "wolf's fang strike" per encounter.

Man, it's combat mechanics. I've never seen any kind of CRPG combat mechanic with no gameplay contrivances. There will not be a CRPG with no gameplay/story segregation for quite some time to come.

Edit:
I just read you last post. I repeat, that is not the point. Of course combat scenes should be improved. ME3 had excellent story/combat integration for the most part, something I mentioned in my recent mission-by-mission review thread. Such integration will always be desirable, regardless of whether there's an ultra-fast button or not. Let me ask you this: has the ability to skip dialogue resulted in worse dialogue? Well, dialogue options did decrease - which is more a result of voiced protagonists - but the overall quality hasn't gotten worse I'd say.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 juillet 2013 - 07:58 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Joy Divison wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you play on "Casual" or ME3's "Narrative", the fights are already so easy that you don't need much tactics or coordination. Some players just don't care for being challenged that way, and the games already accomodate them.

If they are as easy as you claim, what is taking so long to finish them?

You obviously have not been reading the posts. Anyway, even if you haven't, you ought to know that easy does not necessarily have to mean quick.

It was a rhetorical question.  The answer is the poor drawn-out combat mechanics that are inherent in many of the CRPGs, of which DA2 is a particuarly egregious offender, something a button to skip combat does not solve and make everyone happy as the poster claims.

It would solve it.  It isn't the only solution, but if you do not like the combat, or just don't want to do it again, then having the option to skip it would solve that problem.  Maybe if you wanted to make better points avoid hyperbole and rheotorical questions to make it seem your stance is stronger.

[Joy Divison]

What you are telling me now is not the same as what you said in your original post.  In your original post this is what you wrote:

I was severely burned by DA2's combat. Endless hordes of trash enemies always appearing in the same type of wave all around me, combat encounters without any meaning or purpose, to say nothing about the groan-worthy animations and cheap special effects. It's about as much fun as chopping onions. I never want to have that again in a game.

Usually, whenever I get bored with the combat in other games - as can happen even with the best of them after enough playthroughs - I set the difficulty to Casual and combat is over reasonably fast. Only, not in DA2. Most enemies don't die any slower on Normal than on Casual, their number is drawing things out beyond my patience, and there is always the next wave, and the next, and the next. No matter that I can sit back and let my team handle the fight almost without doing anything myself, setting the difficulty to Casual in DA2 does not reduce the time wasted in combat significantly (and in DA2 it was a waste of time 90% of the time, as opposed to, say, ME3).

So here's what I'd like to see: an option to reduce the number of waves in a combat encounter to one, or any other way to get combat over with real fast. I don't care if it costs me xp.

In that post you make it quite clear the combat mechanics and presentation of DA2 are the problem.  You also made it clear that DA2 is exceptional in that your usual solution of reseting the difficulty does not work...you know "only, not is DA2."  Then mechanical fixes was the first of your proposed solutions.

Now when I said "the answer is the poor drawn-out combat mechanics that are inherent in many of the CRPGs, of which DA2 is a particuarly egregious offender," which is practically paraphrasing your orignial post (only I included more CRPGs, something not in your original post but a stance you seem to have since adopted), you now tell me "that's not the point"?

I see now why it's not the point because you resent the fact that dialogue cannot be skipped whereas combat can't.  Why did you not say so in the first place?  Why did I bother wasting my time talking about how superior combat mechanics and presentation could help improve the situation, you know, like you stated in your OP?

And I have to say that I'm confused between this line "Combat itself doesn't give you any exposition except about combat mechanics" and "ME3 had excellent story/combat integration for the most part, something I mentioned in my recent mission-by-mission review thread. Such integration will always be desirable."  Doesn't the second quote imply the story and the combat are neatly combined and invalidate your first quote?  Which is it?

You asked me whether or not I think the option to skip dialogue has resulted in worse dialogue.  I don't know.  As far as I can recall, there has *always* been the option to skip dialogue...I'm pretty sure when I was playing the Gold Box Pool of Radiance series in the early 1990s I could skip dialogue so there is no comparison I can draw upon.  In general I would not say dialogue as a whole has improved or gotten worse.  There have been games that done it well and not so well in the 90s, 00s, and today. I think we get less options, but as you say, that has to do with voice acting.

If you resent the implication that dialogue is not as important as combat is because of the option to skip it, or lack thereof, that's your prerogative and that's not something I would want or be able to change.  You might even be right.  I don't think a "kill enemies" button would have worked very well in older games based on the D&D model predicated on you could only do stuff x times a day.  But as the automatic regenerate up to 100% good-as-new model is the norm, it might actually be plausible.  I do not mind the button on principle.  I do mind some of the justifications I am hearing such as combat mechanics exposition "none of that is going to matter, nor does it necessarily interest" people who play on certain difficulties or that combat is just an "accessory," and that exposition should instead be reserved for stuff like cut scenes.  If combat is just going to serve as an interruption to a story-driven game, I'd want to skip it too.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 13 juillet 2013 - 04:32 .

[Magdalena11]

I've noticed playing DA2 that an enemy will cling to a sliver of life with all party members hacking away at it until the predetermined time of combat has been reached. I don't mind having random combat encounters, such as street thugs that spawn over and over. I just wish if I killed them they would die already.

[Ieldra]

@Joy Division:
When I wrote the OP, what I wrote there was indeed my concern. It still is my main concern. It became a matter of principle in the debate only because of the unreasonably hostile responses and the hypocrisy of treating combat as more essential to roleplaying than character interaction. What I resent, to be precise, is not that others see combat as more essential to CRPGs than character interaction, but that they apparently want that to be dogma.

Also, the debate did extend. I consider implementing better combat encounters of primary importance, and it would be all that's needed to satisfy me personally. However, after Jennifer Hepler's quote came up, I chose to defend her position along with mine, since I think she's right and her position needs defending.

Also, I still don't understand how combat provides exposition. I really don't. It has never done so for me before, except in cutscenes showing combat and by giving me information about "here are these kinds of enemies". None of that would be removed by adding a function to end combat fast. When I said that ME3 has excellent story/combat integration, I mean that both elements flow into each other naturally. Most of the time, anyway.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juillet 2013 - 06:49 .

[Ieldra]

Faerunner wrote...
Of course not. Lots of tedious and unavoidable mob attacks in every area is what this franchise specializes in. In DA:O it was darkspawn, undead, bandits and werewolves. In DA2 it was hordes of human criminals, Qunari, Tal-Vashoth and mages/templars. You think they're going to change it in this game?

I rarely felt combat was filler in DAO, it never featured that insane number of trash enemies, and it rarely used enemy waves.

DA2 feels like they took the combat encounter script from Stone Prisoner's deepstalker encounters - which were as annoying as DA2's encounters, as opposed to almost all others in DAO - and applied it to everything in DA2.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:01 .

[Ieldra]

Magdalena11 wrote...
I've noticed playing DA2 that an enemy will cling to a sliver of life with all party members hacking away at it until the predetermined time of combat has been reached. I don't mind having random combat encounters, such as street thugs that spawn over and over. I just wish if I killed them they would die already.

You think there is a minimum survival time implemented? That would a rather annoying way to draw out combat. I hope it's just a bug. As for thugs respawning over and over, I would mind that very much. Combat is pointless enough already. 

[KDD-0063]

I don't think J. Hepler's quote hints bright future about skipping combat.

ME3 offers a rather shallow way of skipping combat: the narrative mode. However, the concept of skipping combat has always been in the world of gaming. Dialogue choices, stealth, puzzle solving, persuasion checks ... etc etc.

Although most developers did not think fully about these things; they made most options useless useful, that by not fighting a group of mobs you lose XP and loot. That does not mean this issue isn't recognized. Many modders actually include those things in their mods, and make the reward of skipping combat by being smart on par with killing the mobs.

Heck, nowadays it is even in MMOs. "Heart quests" are a big part of the quest and exploration system in Guild Wars 2, and you can complete nearly all of them in a non-violent way.

Problem of Hepler's system, quoting a video on youtube, that it creates an atmosphere where no combat can exist in story, and no story can exist in combat. That is not solving the issue; it is forcing the issue.

[Catroi]

Helper isn't a designer end of story

[KDD-0063]

Catroi wrote...

Helper isn't a designer end of story

I understand that she's a scapegoat;
She said a lot of things that look good on paper but were poorly executed in recent Bioware games, and she got blamed.

However, given Bioware's recent records, I don't want to get my hopes up about skipping combat Bioware style.

[Nefla]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...
I've noticed playing DA2 that an enemy will cling to a sliver of life with all party members hacking away at it until the predetermined time of combat has been reached. I don't mind having random combat encounters, such as street thugs that spawn over and over. I just wish if I killed them they would die already.

You think there is a minimum survival time implemented? That would a rather annoying way to draw out combat. I hope it's just a bug. As for thugs respawning over and over, I would mind that very much. Combat is pointless enough already. 

That had happened to me several times as well, the last and unkillable enemy with a shred of health. I also hate quickly killing one wave, only to have to WAIT for the next wave. I pretty much hate everything about DA2 combat. I didn't enjoy DA:O combat either but it was far more tolerable and waaaaay less frequent. My preference would be for twitch combat but I'm sure most DA fans would hate that so I'd be satisfied with more DA:O style less frequent encounters with more abilities and shorter cool downs. If they keep DA2 combat (and I think it's been said they are keeping waves at least which is the worst part) then I 100% want to skip that ****.

[Angrywolves]

Well we don't want it like DA2 with enemies parachuting /teleporting in. It was too unrealistic .
Don't know how fast it can be without being comical.

[Catroi]

KDD-0063 wrote...

Catroi wrote...

Helper isn't a designer end of story

I understand that she's a scapegoat;
She said a lot of things that look good on paper but were poorly executed in recent Bioware games, and she got blamed.

However, given Bioware's recent records, I don't want to get my hopes up about skipping combat Bioware style.

So by stating an absolutely neutral fact I'm scapegoating her?

She is a writer, she doesnt have any sort of decision power on how the game plays, she can express her wishes and opinion but they won't influence anything hence why I'm reminding all of you that having a member of the dev team wanting something does not equate to that thing ever happening.

If she was lead designer then yes I'd give credit where credit is due but she just expressed her writer personnal opinion do not forget that

[Jorji Costava]

Somehow, I think that this video might be highly relevant to this thread.

[Ianamus]

I'm generally fine with how the previous games have handled combat and story. I don't really want a way to skip combat because I have a feeling I would abuse it too much and complete the game far too early, but on the flip side of the coin neither should they be introducing "Action mode" ala ME3 which removes the majority of the dialogue. The balance is acceptable as it is.

The only Bioware game that needed this option was bloody SWTOR. "There, you've just reached the mid game peak of your story and you're all excited for more! Now off to the grind pit for another three hours before you can continue to feel engaged with the story!"

Modifié par EJ107, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:26 .

[Ieldra]

osbornep wrote...
Somehow, I think that this video might be highly relevant to this thread.

This should be required viewing for all gamers and developers.

[Joy Divison]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Joy Division:
When I wrote the OP, what I wrote there was indeed my concern. It still is my main concern. It became a matter of principle in the debate only because of the unreasonably hostile responses and the hypocrisy of treating combat as more essential to roleplaying than character interaction. What I resent, to be precise, is not that others see combat as more essential to CRPGs than character interaction, but that they apparently want that to be dogma.

Also, the debate did extend. I consider implementing better combat encounters of primary importance, and it would be all that's needed to satisfy me personally. However, after Jennifer Hepler's quote came up, I chose to defend her position along with mine, since I think she's right and her position needs defending.

Also, I still don't understand how combat provides exposition. I really don't. It has never done so for me before, except in cutscenes showing combat and by giving me information about "here are these kinds of enemies". None of that would be removed by adding a function to end combat fast. When I said that ME3 has excellent story/combat integration, I mean that both elements flow into each other naturally. Most of the time, anyway.

Ok fair enough.  We all refine our arguments during a debate and our disconnect is mostly the result of me jumping in on page 11 or what not.

Rgarding your last question, Combat *should* provide exposition.  It does not have to and unfortuantely does not in many CRPGs. I don't know how long it has been since you played tabletop RPGs, but I'm guessing if you had good DMs, most combats had a specific purpose to the plot (tell us about the world, NPC, advanced story, etc.) i.e., it had a point beyond rolling dice.  The players could learn this stuff by visiting taverns, consulting archives, listening to witnesses, etc., but if we are going to have combat, why not give it a purpose beyond button mashing and adding extra hours of content, thus diversifying the ways in which the players learn about the world and advance the story? 

If say to advance the story, we need to learn some strange undergound/alien race has suddenly made an appearance and is looking for an artifact...why not develop a combat scenario in which we see these unknown invaders wrecking havoc in a town and that their primary behavior is systematically looking for something as opposed to random monster AI or gunning for the player?  Story narrative and combat are thus blended rather than one interrupting the other. That's all.  All of the better old-school tabletop published module adventures did this.  Perhaps, like what was said in the video linked above, pointless combat is a bad habit that has been learned and many CRPG devlopers have just gone away from intergrating combat into the story.  So I'm not arguing that combat does provide exposition, only that in my better role-playing experiences it did in some way.

It's a position that is not really related to the direction in which your argument has gone, i.e. that there should be an "advance combat" button.  Philosophically I don't have a strong preference one way or the other bc/ such a button would still leave us with what is for me the most frustrating aspect of games like DA2: pointless combat that does not tell me about the world, advance the plot, or serve any purpose but add the amount hours they can advertise how long the game is.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 14 juillet 2013 - 03:15 .

[AlanC9]

Joy Divison wrote...
Rgarding your last question, Combat *should* provide exposition.  It does not have to and unfortuantely does not in many CRPGs. I don't know how long it has been since you played tabletop RPGs, but I'm guessing if you had good DMs, most combats had a specific purpose to the plot (tell us about the world, NPC, advanced story, etc.) i.e., it had a point beyond rolling dice.  The players could learn this stuff by visiting taverns, consulting archives, listening to witnesses, etc., but if we are going to have combat, why not give it a purpose beyond button mashing and adding extra hours of content, thus diversifying the ways in which the players learn about the world and advance the story? 

I've always suspected the reason CRPGs have so much more combat than PnP is that CRPG combat is so much faster than PnP combat. A DM won't run combats without a reason to, but a CRPG will throw them in as fun filler.

[Realmzmaster]

One problem I see is who defines pointless combat? If the party is walking through the forest and gets attacked by a pack of wolves is that pointless combat? It does little to move the plot along but it is realistic because you walking through the forest.
If you are walking through an abandoned part of town or at late hours is it pointless that the party may get attacked by thugs. Maybe the thugs heard about the protagonist's rep and want to be the ones to eliminate the PC upping their street cred. Would that be pointless combat?

So what or who defines pointless combat? It can differ depending on the gamer.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

osbornep wrote...
Somehow, I think that this video might be highly relevant to this thread.

This should be required viewing for all gamers and developers.

Definitely a relevant video. Agreed.