809 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Hence the one RE per journey rule.

[Ieldra]

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? 

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.

As I said: what provides exposition is not the combat itself, but the fact that it happens, and possibly a pattern of combat encounters. None of that would vanish if we had an "advance combat" function available after the actual fighting has started. All it would remove is the hassle of actually killing those enemies, beating them into submission or whatever the typical result is in a specific game. 

Also, I'm a tabletop roleplayer and GM of 30 years and I play and GM about once a week. I see combat as a highlight, a time of unprecedented tension, and something that most characters would try to avoid as a rule. Physical conflict is a last-resort type of thing since its results are unpredictable. Consequently, there aren't many fights in my campaigns, and a CRPG designed according to my principles would have 90-95% less unavoidable combat than your typical CRPG (the players starting a fight is always possible of course), but all such encounters would be key scenes in the plot, give or take a few thrown in to illustrate something about the area. The regrettable tendency of video RPGs to overstress combat is a result of the fact that it's easy to confine in a system of rules while still remaining somewhat plausible, as opposed to dialogue, where confining it can result in questions like "Why can't I say X, damn it?" Combat is easy to implement with algorithms used as behavioural templates for countless encounters, while with dialogue you need to think about what the options should be for every encounter anew.

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.

"We need less and better designed combat encounters which are better integrated into the story" is a statement I subscribe to. However, a function to avoid the combat itself or get it over with fast remains desirable nonetheless, even more so as long as CRPGs have combat far in excess of what's necessary for the story.

[abnocte]

I consider videogames as a whole single entity, if I need to skip a videogame section because I don't enjoy/like it I'm either playing the wrong game, or the game has been poorly designed.

In my case I didn't enjoy dialogue nor combat in DA2 so I quit playing it ( even though I was already in chapter 3 ). But I wouldn't ask for combat to be skippable from now on just because DA2 left me with an awful aftertaste.

I want better combat, encounters that make sense and and are skippable through dialogue. A button to skip them, would be like telling Bioware that they can get away with such awful encounter design...

[Realmzmaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Hence the one RE per journey rule.

That means that I get a RE for every trip? So if go to Lowtown from Hightown I can get an RE and If I make the return journey I get an RE. Would that still be pointless combat for some gamers? I guess any RE would have to be integrated into the story, but then it is not an RE.

[Masha Potato]

Star fury wrote...

Do you want this?

"Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue." © Jennifer Hepler

Yes, that's exactly what i want

[Realmzmaster]

Masha Potato wrote...

Star fury wrote...

Do you want this?

"Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue." © Jennifer Hepler

Yes, that's exactly what i want

So basically you want an interactive movie. When combat comes up you want to hit the autowin button. Get all the goodies that the combat provides and move on to the dialogue.

[Ieldra]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Masha Potato wrote...

Star fury wrote...

Do you want this?

"Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue." © Jennifer Hepler

Yes, that's exactly what i want

So basically you want an interactive movie. When combat comes up you want to hit the autowin button. Get all the goodies that the combat provides and move on to the dialogue.

No. I want to reduce the combats to the encounters meaningful for the story. Also, why not have that option? The naysayers here act as if it means I'll go through the game without combat at all. First, that's not necessarily so, it's a one-by-one decision. Second, even if I do go through the game skipping all fights, what business is it of yours? Maybe I'm playing the game for the nth time exploring differences in the story. Maybe I like story enough that I don't regret paying for the game even though I hate the combat?

I'm arguing for more freedom in choosing play styles. What I do with the game I paid for is nobody else's concern, and I see it as desirable, for both players and developers, to accommodate as many play styles as they can, and I don't mind tweaking the noses of the hardcore elitists who think it should be a significant achievement to finish the game at all. That's what achievements are for.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

So basically you want an interactive movie. When combat comes up you want to hit the autowin button. Get all the goodies that the combat provides and move on to the dialogue.

Is there anything wrong with that?

We shouldn't all be forced to play the same way.

[AlanC9]

Realmzmaster wrote...

That means that I get a RE for every trip? So if go to Lowtown from Hightown I can get an RE and If I make the return journey I get an RE. Would that still be pointless combat for some gamers? I guess any RE would have to be integrated into the story, but then it is not an RE.

Depends on the level of integration . There are some DA:O "REs" that are just bumping into darkspawn or Loghain's men, otheres are activated by certain game events (when magi are recruited you can get an RE with a mage and pupils attacking some darkspawn), and some are active if a particular sidequest has been accepted.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:21 .

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No. I want to reduce the combats to the encounters meaningful for the story. Also, why not have that option? The naysayers here act as if it means I'll go through the game without combat at all. First, that's not necessarily so, it's a one-by-one decision. Second, even if I do go through the game skipping all fights, what business is it of yours? Maybe I'm playing the game for the nth time exploring differences in the story. Maybe I like story enough that I don't regret paying for the game even though I hate the combat?

I'm replaying DA:O right now,  in the middle of the temple going after the Sacred Ashes, and from getting into the place until you first run into dragonlings there's really not much being advanced. There's some fighting,some loot, two keys to find.

The fighting and the looting is fairly enjoyable, but there really isn't anything going on here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

So basically you want an interactive movie. When combat comes up you want to hit the autowin button. Get all the goodies that the combat provides and move on to the dialogue.

Is there anything wrong with that?

We shouldn't all be forced to play the same way.

I have no problem with the autowin button as I stated before as long as it does not affect the overall game. I am basically pointing out that such games exist and what some seem to want is the option for an interactive Dragon Age movie game within the larger game.

[Realmzmaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

That means that I get a RE for every trip? So if go to Lowtown from Hightown I can get an RE and If I make the return journey I get an RE. Would that still be pointless combat for some gamers? I guess any RE would have to be integrated into the story, but then it is not an RE.

Depends on the level of integration . There are some DA:O "REs" that are just bumping into darkspawn or Loghain's men, otheres are activated by certain game events (when magi are recruited you can get an RE with a mage and pupils attacking some darkspawn), and some are active if a particular sidequest has been accepted.

Actually scripted events always happen. For example if you finish the Circle quest that is the trigger for the meeting of the mages on the road. The same with the elves, dwarves and Redcliffe soldiers. I have yet to have a playthrough where it did not happen. Not really random events 

There are random events that do happen, but most of the ones in DAO  are not really well integrated into the story. In fact DAO has 28 RE's that can happen. The Crater and the Strange Woods is more an example of a RE because it may or may not happen in the game. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

There's a point where atmospheric combat (eg, wolf attack in forest) crosses the line into being meaningless time-wasting combat (eg. the entire population of wolves in the whole forest attacking in discrete 5-10 wolf packs).

Likewise, there's a time when story/plot-based combat (eg. thugs with a stated interest in attacking the party) becomes ridiculously excessive, and obvious filler material. You expect some areas to be combat-heavy, but it gets unbelievable when you're trying to walk to the pub at night in a patrolled city and getting ambushed at every single street corner by significant numbers of imbeciles. I swear my Hawke killed more people in the 'Night' sections of town than my Warden did darkspawn during the entire siege of Denerim.

Why do developers choose to draw out the length of their games with so much combat? Well, once the combat system is in place and the 'monsters' have stats and equipment (basic template), it's not that hard to drop a few mobs into an area and script a fight, especially if they just pop out of nowhere and all look the same. Fast, easy, cost-effective. Everyone loves/expects combat in computer games and it'll make the game feel longer!

Combat is a staple of RPGs, it has its place and they shouldn't get rid of it, but there are so many other things that can soak up a player's time besides whacking things over the head with oddly proportioned weaponry. I don't think we'd see so many people interested in a way to speed up/skip tedious combat scenes if there wasn't so damn many of them that played out almost exactly the same way.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 16 juillet 2013 - 03:21 .

[Eveangaline]

Can't we just have combat be super fun? I admit I'd like more combat for grinding purposes.

[Realmzmaster]

Eveangaline wrote...

Can't we just have combat be super fun? I admit I'd like more combat for grinding purposes.

There lies the problem. How do you make combat super fun for everyone? The answer is you cannot. Some gamers want to skip the combat no matter how much fun you make it. Fun is also very subjective. 

[Taint Master]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

Can't we just have combat be super fun? I admit I'd like more combat for grinding purposes.

There lies the problem. How do you make combat super fun for everyone? The answer is you cannot. Some gamers want to skip the combat no matter how much fun you make it. Fun is also very subjective. 

Well those gamers can go play the Sims.  Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

[Ieldra]

Eveangaline wrote...
Can't we just have combat be super fun? I admit I'd like more combat for grinding purposes.

One player's "super fun" is the other's tedious chore. I hate grinding beyond anything else. I'd rather walk around looking at nicely crafted landscapes, trying to find the best scenic views in the game world, while being able to point the finger at any entity daring to interrupt my aimless wandering, saying "die!" and have them obey.

@TaintMaster:
This may surprise you, but is a significant subset of players who play for the story and have no interest in being challenged with every fight. This is a legitimate play style, and your condescending dismissal of play styles unlike your own is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude in certain circles around here that would deny others a play style they like. Roleplaying is about story and interaction, combat is just a means to carry aspects of the story and one method of interaction. In my tabletop roleplaying campaigns, there are countless encounters with possible hostiles and countless different ways to deal with them, combat being only of many possible outcomes. A game built on the premise "there must be combat in every encounter" fails the idea of roleplaying in the most basic way. 
Consider a game like DXHR: You have four ways to deal with enemies: (1) fight them openly, (2) sneak up on them and knock them out, (3) avoid them, and occasionally (4) speak with them and make them back off. If we had such different methods of interaction in most encounters in DA2, there would be no complaints about excessive combat. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juillet 2013 - 07:47 .

[xkg]

Taint Master wrote...
Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And Fifa is a football simulator, it has an option to auto resolve matches. How's that possible ?
Total War series is a starategy game focused on tactical battles and .... what a surprise, you can auto resolve every single battle. Heresy !!!.

Taint Master wrote...
Well those gamers can go play the Sims.

Or you know, they can add the button to skip the combat for those players.

If they already have (on the new engine) something similar to killallhostilies for testing purposes, adding a new button to the interface and linking it to that script would require an entire few hours of devs time to code ...

So yeah, remind me, why are you exactly against it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Taint Master wrote...

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And some of them want it to be a button-mashing hack&slash game with no roleplaying at all.

We don't all want the same things.  So it makes sense to gve us options.

It shouldn't matter to you if other players play the game in a way you wouldn't enjoy.  No one is making you do it, so you have no reason to care.

[Taint Master]

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And Fifa is a football simulator, it has an option to auto resolve matches. How's that possible ?
Total War series is a starategy game focused on tactical battles and .... what a surprise, you can auto resolve every single battle. Heresy !!!.

And those are analogous to DA how exactly?  They're completely different genres with completely different play styles. 

What you guys are proposing would literally equate to god-moding the entire game since you can't technically lose and progress the story (unless it's scripted that way). 

So yeah, remind me, why are you exactly against it?

Because it trivializes the entire game.  Your spec/class choices would make no difference because you'd auto-win every encounter.  Gear has no meaning because you auto-win every encounter.  Strategy goes completely out the window because... well you get the idea (I hope).

It's pretty laughable that people want to play these legendary war heroes but not get their hands dirty with icky fighting...

[13Dannyboy13]

I definitely had issues with combat in DA2, it just got very tedious, especially on the harder difficulty levels, by the end I was just tired of the mindless button mashing. I never really had issues with DA:O combat though, it was a lot more tactical and enjoyable, especially setting up spell combinations and things like that. While I don't think that a button to skip combat would work, I wouldn't mind seeing more options through dialogue to avoid some combat situations. The one problem I see with skipping combat would be experience and leveling, it's not like they could just let you skip a bunch of fighting and give you free xp, while letting you skip the fights without xp could leave you underleveled for future encounters. I don't think there's any easy solution, especially since none of the dragon age games have had any respawning enemies, nowhere to go to grind xp for a few extra levels, maybe it could work if the dialogue options led to more dialogue with options to spend gold for "escorts" through a certain area who would automatically kill the enemies and you'd get a fraction of the xp or something similar. I remember spending hours upon hours in older rpgs grinding levels, so some tedious combat doesn't bother me as much as it bores me.

[xkg]

Taint Master wrote...

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And Fifa is a football simulator, it has an option to auto resolve matches. How's that possible ?
Total War series is a starategy game focused on tactical battles and .... what a surprise, you can auto resolve every single battle. Heresy !!!.

And those are analogous to DA how exactly?  They're completely different genres with completely different play styles. 

Not analogous, but it does perfectly shows the flaws of your entire "skipping part of the game == playing the wrong genre" argument.

You said "If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre".

1). "If someone hates combat"
"Someone wants to skip the combat"  =/=  "He hates the combat."

2). "they're clearly playing the wrong genre"
Then why would the developer put an auto resolve match button in football-simulator genre game.
Why is there an auto resolve battle button in a game, that is in 90% about fighting those battles.
For whom are those buttons ?

Taint Master wrote...
What you guys are proposing would literally equate to god-moding the entire game since you can't technically lose and progress the story (unless it's scripted that way). 

How ME, god-moding through the entire game would affect YOU and YOUR game ?

+ Look below for more...

Taint Master wrote...
Because it trivializes the entire game.  Your spec/class choices would make no difference because you'd auto-win every encounter.  Gear has no meaning because you auto-win every encounter.  Strategy goes completely out the window because... well you get the idea (I hope).

Ok, let's say it does, but ... since it would be an option, you wouldn't have to use it,

so :

Yes, It would trivialize the game for ME, wouldn't for YOU 
Yes, spec/class choices would make no difference in MY game, it would in YOURS. 
Yes, gear would have no meaning  ...  (see the above)---^
Yes, no strategy for ME, YOU can have it all.

Yes, I would be able to play the game to MY likings, and that wouldn't affect YOU nor YOUR game in the slightest.


So one more time, lets go back to my earlier question:

Why exactly are you against this OPTION?

Modifié par xkg, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:21 .

[Ieldra]

Taint Master wrote...

xkg wrote...
So yeah, remind me, why are you exactly against it?

Because it trivializes the entire game.  Your spec/class choices would make no difference because you'd auto-win every encounter.  Gear has no meaning because you auto-win every encounter.  Strategy goes completely out the window because... well you get the idea (I hope).

And? What does it matter to *you* if *I* make strategy, builds and equipment irrelevant in *MY* game? What does it matter to *you* if *I* have the freedom to select equipment for how good it looks instead of how well it kills? If you want to brag about your awesome playing skills compared to us other losers, achievements are the way to do that (And BTW, I enjoyed ME3'c combat on Insanity, it was much more fun than DA2's on any difficulty level. I just don't care to play every game that way just to see another minor variation in the story)

Things are already so easy in ME3's Narrative mode that strategy, build and equipment are all irrelevant, so it's not as if there isn't precedent. It's just that in ME3, Narrative mode is enough to speed things up considerably, some annoying scenes like the Rannoch Reaper fight notwithstanding, while in games with excessive use of waves like DA2 it isn't enough.

Also, what xkg said. The question is hanging in the air.

 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:23 .