809 réponses à ce sujet

[Hazegurl]

Nefla wrote...

I don't see why combat is being held up as sacred, combat has never been BW's strong suit (ME2 and 3 are the only exceptions IMO). BioWare games have been well known for their stories and characters, NOT for their combat. "If you don't like combat you're playing the wrong game, go read a book hur hur!" Really? If anyone is playing DA for its awesome button exploding combat and not the story, characters, character building, etc...then I'd argue there are much better combat centered games out there that you should be playing yet BW is still the only company that makes games with that kind of story/characters/roleplay/choices/etc...the combat in DA2 added little to nothing to the game (in my opinion it was so terrible and sooo frequent it brought the whole game down even more).

If I just want to experience the story and characters (which BW are great at) why is it necessary for me to wade through wave after wave of parachuting enemies that if you kill too fast you have to actually sit there and wait for the next wave to materialize out of the sky so you can press A and explode them again and again. This is not fun. I would think that someone who likes combat would find it even less fun.

What I really want is for them to make combat good but I really don't see how it affects combat fans if combat is skippable on casual difficulty only.

100% this.  i find it funny how some posters are claiming that people shouldn't play the game if they don't like the combat, the combat is the worst aspect of the entire Dragon Age series. DAO, DAA, and DA2. The only improvement was that it was faster in DA2. that's all. People act like they are playing Devil May Cry where they have to remember complex styles and moves and graded on how well they execute each move. Wrong series for that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I find the game's combat tedious (as I did in DA2), I'm going to have trouble enjoying the game. Skipping the combat solves at least some of that problem.

And, for the record, I didn't find DAO's combat tedious. I really quite enjoyed DAO's combat.

[Taint Master]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
For
example, finally beating the Cauthrien fight on hard in DAO was one of
the most satisfying kills I've had in an RPG.  Heck, even on easy she's
no walk in the park.  If you could just auto-kill her entire squad then
beating her holds no meaning, even if I choose not to use it.

So why not implement an auto-win button in lower difficulties only? I understand the point. I felt the same when I got the Grim Reaper achievement in DAO. Nonetheless, I don't want to play that way all the time. An auto-resolve button doesn't make sense on higher difficulties anyway, since if you choose them, you obviously play for the challenge. Still, having it avaiable in lower difficulties improves them the experience for those who play for the story, even if they rarely use it.

The Cauthrien fight illustrates something that needs to be taken into account though: This is a fight you aren't meant to win. That becomes clear both from the extreme difficulty as well as the fact that you lose content - and most interesting content, gameplay-wise - by winning it. It would be acceptable to disable any auto-win functionality for such a fight. 

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to it if it was unlocked after completeing at least one regular playthrough.  Maybe unlock skipping individual battles once you successfully clear them.  I'd rather the game not compromise personally, but at least that would require people to actually play through the content once.

I still feel like people should be asking for more engaging combat rather than wanting to skip it entirely (I don't remember nearly as many complaining about combat in DAO).

xkg wrote...
 some insults here]" point, but no, I won't do that.

Honestly that would probably be a more convincing argument than what you wrote.

As others have already explained, auto-resolve is not the same as auto-win.  It can work in a sports game or a strategy game where absolute victory isn't required.  Here, you'd have to win or "roll" again and again until you did just to progress.  That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

Skipping dialogue isn't the same considering you can't "lose" a conversation.

Doesn't matter "what is the point", "who enjoys what", "why", "where", "how" ...

You keep ignoring my very simple question.

Some people are asking for an option, that you can freely ignore

Here we go one more time

Why exactly are you against this OPTION?

I've answered that several times over actually.  It seems you don't like the answer so you choose to ignore it.

Modifié par Taint Master, 16 juillet 2013 - 07:47 .

[xkg]

Taint Master wrote...
As others have already explained, auto-resolve is not the same as auto-win.  It can work in a sports game or a strategy game where absolute victory isn't required.  Here, you'd have to win or "roll" again and again until you did just to progress.  That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

Yes, your argument does sound like that, I have to agree.

Instead of rolling again and again, without an auto resolve I have to fight the same battle again and again until I win, just to progress.
Same fight, again and again. Same fight ... ... to progress. ... and again and again just to ... .

It seems that because you're soooo... oh I don't know ... blinded by your stubbornness, you just can't see any other options.

"Roll, die. Roll, die. Try again, try again." is the only scenario you can see ?

Let me think ... yeah, took me a few seconds to find something better.
Instead of rolling again and again, I would end up beaten up pretty badly. I would have to go back to the camp/city to heal, resupply and then give it another try . Maybe change the equipment, use different team. I can see many more options here.

Taint Master wrote...

Doesn't matter "what is the point", "who enjoys what", "why", "where", "how" ...

You keep ignoring my very simple question.

Some people are asking for an option, that you can freely ignore

Here we go one more time

Why exactly are you against this OPTION?

I've answered that several times over actually.  It seems you don't like the answer so you choose to ignore it.

No you didn't. Show me your post, where you wrote an simple answer to my simple question.

Or just fill the blank for me :

"I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because [.............................................]"

[Taint Master]

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
As others have already explained, auto-resolve is not the same as auto-win.  It can work in a sports game or a strategy game where absolute victory isn't required.  Here, you'd have to win or "roll" again and again until you did just to progress.  That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

Yes, your argument does sound like that, I have to agree.

Instead of rolling again and again, without an auto resolve I have to fight the same battle again and again until I win, just to progress.
Same fight, again and again. Same fight ... ... to progress. ... and again and again just to ... .

Ahhh there it is.  So you're one of those players that wants everything handed to you without putting in any effort.  Instead of learning and adapting to a difficult encounter, lets just skip/insta-kill everything.

You want an interactive movie, not a game.

Instead of rolling again and again, I would end up beaten up pretty badly. I would have to go back to the camp/city to heal, resupply and then give it another try . Maybe change the equipment, use different team. I can see many more options here.

So you'd go change characters and roll again or change gear and roll again until you lucked out and got a win?  And that is less tedious and contrived than actually learning how to play?  Really?

"I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because [.............................................]"

Check my first two posts.  If you're going to willfully ignore them I can't make you understand.

[abnocte]

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 !!!.

In Total War a defeat in a battle does not lead to a "Game Over" screen. And as far as I remember the

"autoresolve" button, wasn't an "autowin" button but instead ran some calculations and could perfectly end up

with your forces losing the battle and clearly telling you how many soldiers did you lose.

Now if we change the usual RPG mechanics where losing a battle ( full party-wipe ) leads to a game over...that could lead to some interesting things, like in DAO when you fight Cauthrien and end up in prison.

Then it would be feasible to implement an auto-resolve button, then the game calculates the outcome, and if you lose you lose all your belogings ( the player is not the only one allowed to loot! ), or end up in prison, or end up sold into slavery...

I think that way things make more sense... 

[Ieldra]

Taint Master wrote...
I still feel like people should be asking for more engaging combat rather than wanting to skip it entirely (I don't remember nearly as many complaining about combat in DAO).

One does not preclude the other. Personally, I'd be fine with engaging and meaningful combat that I can also circumvent by in-world mechanisms like intimidation, diplomacy, stealth etc.. as a rule instead of an exception. I'm not averse to sticking a great deal of skill points into non-combat skills if it promises a significant return of the investment.  However, the ridiculous excess of combat in most RPGs is something I'll never be ok with and will always look for a means to circumvent.

[Taint Master]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
I still feel like people should be asking for more engaging combat rather than wanting to skip it entirely (I don't remember nearly as many complaining about combat in DAO).

One does not preclude the other. Personally, I'd be fine with engaging and meaningful combat that I can also circumvent by in-world mechanisms like intimidation, diplomacy, stealth etc.. as a rule instead of an exception. I'm not averse to sticking a great deal of skill points into non-combat skills if it promises a significant return of the investment.  However, the ridiculous excess of combat in most RPGs is something I'll never be ok with and will always look for a means to circumvent.

Oh now that I am all for.  More diplomatic or stealthy options for avoiding conflicts would be very welcome imo, and especially fitting for certain character archetypes. 

But I get the impression certain people here just blatantly want an I-win button for everything.

[abnocte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@M25105:
Wrong? In which way wrong, may I ask? It there some hidden rule that every single player should always play
through every single combat, just so that a minority of hardcore elitists can brag about their awesome 
videogaming skills? That's nonsense. If combat were an integral part of the story instead of a gameplay 
contrivance to fill up time most of the time....

(1) You'd be able to put considerable effort into *avoiding* combat, since few people actually want a physical

confrontation with possibly lethal consequences.
(2) Lower-tier enemies would run from you after you've established a reputation.
(3) Killing one person (!) in anything but an open war scenario would be treated as a big thing by the story.

And so on.

Also, here is the false dichotomy again: if I want a functionality to get combat over with fast, that does not 
mean I'll use it every single time.

Gods, I can't believe the nonsense people are inventing just to prevent others from enjoying the games on their 
own terms by sidestepping the excessive, completely nonsensical amount of combat we find in our typical RPG 
these days.

May I ask why instead of asking Bioware to make combat an integral part of the story you directly ask for a 
auto-resolve button?

Wouldn't it be better to have a game that allows you to resolve encounters in multiple ways while being 
consistent with the setting/story?

For example, using dialogue to avoid combat ( persuade / intimidate / lie / bribe / ... ), or using sealth, or an auto-resolve combat button. I would prefer to play a game that allows me to go throught it without killing a single enemy because the quests/encounters can be resolved in multiple ways than because I told the game to autocalculate the outcome of the only way it allows me to solve the quest/encounter...

That also means we get to roleplay our characters not only with dialogue but with our actions...


Or I'm being naïve and there's no way Bioware would ever deliver such thing, so better ask for the autowin button?

Edit: Funny how the 2 post above adress what I was trying to say... I should write faster...

Modifié par abnocte, 16 juillet 2013 - 08:41 .

[xkg]

Taint Master wrote...
You want an interactive movie, not a game.

Ok, thanks for enlightening me. I thought I know what I want, but it seems you know better about that.

If you could explain, what is this interactive movie some of you guys keep talking about.
I was looking for a definition and all I found was this (from the wiki, couldn't find it elsewhere)

"An interactive movie is a video game [...]"   -  *Interactive_movie*

So I want an interactive movie not a game.
...but...
Interactive movie == game

I am confused now.

Taint Master wrote...
So you'd go change characters and roll again or change gear and roll again until you lucked out and got a win?  And that is less tedious and contrived than actually learning how to play?  Really?

Maybe IMO it would be less tedious. And if it was, then what ? Does that bother you ? Offends you personally, in any way shape or form?

You know what they say about opinions and asses.
The same goes for tastes.

Taint Master wrote...
Check my first two posts.  If you're going to willfully ignore them I can't make you understand.

I am looking at them now ... still nothing. I mnot ignoring anything willfully .
Maybe I am just too stupid to see it.
Please quote the part of your post, with an anwer to this question


"WHY ARE YOU AGAINST THIS OPTION.
HOW ME, SKIPPING THE BATTLE IN THIS SINGLE PLAYER GAME WOULD AFFECT YOU, OR YOUR GAME"


And if you don't want to waste your time looking for it, FGS, just fill the damn blank  -  just a few words.
"I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because [.............................................]"

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

They'd only need to add the option to let tactics run the currently possessed character as well.

I've been asking for that feature since before DAO was released.  What's more, BioWare apparently could do that very thing during QA, but then they removed it for reasons that are unknown to me.

[Nightwriter]

Taint Master wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
I still feel like people should be asking for more engaging combat rather than wanting to skip it entirely (I don't remember nearly as many complaining about combat in DAO).

One does not preclude the other. Personally, I'd be fine with engaging and meaningful combat that I can also circumvent by in-world mechanisms like intimidation, diplomacy, stealth etc.. as a rule instead of an exception. I'm not averse to sticking a great deal of skill points into non-combat skills if it promises a significant return of the investment.  However, the ridiculous excess of combat in most RPGs is something I'll never be ok with and will always look for a means to circumvent.

Oh now that I am all for.  More diplomatic or stealthy options for avoiding conflicts would be very welcome imo, and especially fitting for certain character archetypes. 

But I get the impression certain people here just blatantly want an I-win button for everything.

What I want is a minimization of tedium. There are lots of ways they could deliver this to me without an I-win button.

[Morty Smith]

Sure, implement it. But also make sure you only get the "true" ending when you decide to participate in every encounter.

[Gustave Flowbert]

I'd love to have this option. I do want to experience the game with full combat and narrative but when I'm on my 31st playthrough of Inquisition, I'm probably playing for novelty. I either want to get to a character option I haven't experienced or trying out a crazy build or something.

The point being, anything that adds more options to a game is a good thing. That's actually why I like BioWare RPGs and why they brought me back into video gaming. I love that romance in DA2 is open to any gender, any character (well, except Sebastian). I sometimes like the tactics of DAO and sometimes like the more fluid(-ish) flow of DA2 combat.

If I want to skip a conversation to move the story along, I should be able to. If I want to have the game auto-complete a battle and award me the same experience as if I fought in the battle, why not? I bought the game and I probably bought it because it's an RPG, the genre of options. These games are very much written to make you love the characters. Giving us rich narrative and rich combat and letting us choose how much we participate in both seems like the most natural choice in the world with what I've gleaned from playing BioWare games.

[Taint Master]

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
You want an interactive movie, not a game.

Ok, thanks for enlightening me. I thought I know what I want, but it seems you know better about that.

If you could explain, what is this interactive movie some of you guys keep talking about.
I was looking for a definition and all I found was this (from the wiki, couldn't find it elsewhere)

"An interactive movie is a video game [...]"   -  *Interactive_movie*

So I want an interactive movie not a game.
...but...
Interactive movie == game

I am confused now.

Well you don't seem to want to actually play any part of the game besides the cutscenes. 

How about a skip travel option as well?  I mean why waste time walking from one cutscene to another?  That would eliminate the chance of you getting into a fight that you might lose! 

In fact, why bother developing a leveling system and branched talent trees?  Why include any kind of character progression at all?  Not like it would matter since you don't ever have to use any your skills anyway...

Taint Master wrote...
Maybe IMO it would be less tedious. And if it was, then what ? Does that bother you ? Offends you personally, in any way shape or form?

So you are an entitled, lazy "gamer" (and I use that term very loosely) who doesn't want any adversity in their campaign... to save the world.

And we're the ones being unreasonable?

[xkg]

FFS, this is getting ridiculous. I asked a simple question and wanted a simple straightforward answer.
Instead of that I am getting essays, philosophical speeches, lectures about what I am doing wrong, that my tases are unreasonable, I lfinally learned what i trully want.

I made it even foolproof with this:
"I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because [.............................................]"



Truth is, I already know the answer. You just wont say it because any answer you can insert there would make you look like a selfish, spiteful douche. There is no other option.


And that answer is :
I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because, JUST BECUASE.


So say it already and we're done.

[Taint Master]

Taint Master wrote...

xkg wrote...

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

Because it trivializes the entire game. 

Modifié par Taint Master, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:03 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

xkg wrote...

"I don't want you to have an option to skip the combat in your game because [.............................................]"

I want combat to be so well integrated with story that to skip it would mean you missed important elements of the plot.

That's the only one I could think of. Mind you I don't hold out much hope all combat would be like that - some, but not all - and if it isn't what's the loss in skipping/trimming it.

[abnocte]

Instead of a "Interective-movie" definition lets see what we understand by "game".

Other people may disagree but, in my understanding I would dare to say a game consists of the following concepts:

-Games have a goal.
-Games have constitutive rules.
-Players follow those rules to achieve that goal. And do so willingly.

If we take a game of chess, you have a board, you have two sets of pieces ( black and white ) and of course two 
players.

To play a game of chess the players agree to follow rules like piece movement restrictions, etc.
The moment they decide to ignore those movement restrictions, or add a third player or mix the pieces so each 
player has white and black pieces, or whatever... they are playing something but no one else will recognize that as a chess game.

Of course they are free to use the board and pieces as they see fit, but those by themselves don't make the game 
know as "chess".


Now onto the auto-win button.

An auto-win button understood as something that allows the player to win each combat encounter, will violate 
two of the concepts above:

- The game rules will be fully ignored.
- The player refuses to follow said rules.

Leaving us with only the goal... so do we still have a game?


Following this line of reasoning I'm against an auto-win button, but will have no problem with an auto-resolve 
button that calculates the outcome of a combat using the constitutive rules of the game as a base.

I insist that an auto-win button for me means that I will be allowed to travel around Thedas with a party fully 
naked and an empty inventory and still be able to resolve combat encounters without a single scratch... which of 
course does not compute in my brain.

All in all, auto-resolve = yes, auto-win = please, please, please, NO

 

Modifié par abnocte, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:14 .

[Nefla]

Being able to skip cutscenes, dialogue, and companion interaction in a story focused game trivializes the game, therefore no one should be able to skip those things.

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

[ladyiolanthe]

I liked the combat in DA:O where you actually had to think about how best to get through without getting the "Your journey has come to an end..." screen. I'm thinking particularly of the warehouse one, or was it the maleficars hiding out near the Denerim alienage? The one with the grease traps in the narrow hallway, rooms full of mages, etc. I couldn't just send in the cavalry; I had to move my characters in one at a time so they wouldn't get stuck in the grease traps. I'd have to stealth my rogue and go take out the mage while everyone else took care of the grunts, etc.

[abnocte]

@Nefla
I've never skipped dialogue, and I agree with you....

But one thing is skipping dialogue and another not interecting with an NPC o companion because you consider your PC ( for whatever reason ) does not like them.

My Hawke didn't like Merrill, so she had no reason to visit her, talk to her, or be bothered with her quests...