809 réponses à ce sujet

[Taint Master]

Nefla wrote...

In DA:O there are several scenarios that are win-win with a special third choice (dark ritual, Connor, werewolves vs Dalish) where picking a different option results in a less "perfect" outcome. Does that mean I feel obligated to choose the optimal solution every time because I have no self control? No, I pick whatever option fits the character I'm playing and if that means a sad outcome then so be it. There is always an option to skip dialogue and cutscenes or an option to be an evil **** (like executing Alistair or selling Fenris back into slavery) I would not pick those options even if the rewards were great (just like getting rewarded despite putting zero effort into fighting would be supposedly tempting to you) but that does not mean that those options shouldn't be there just because they don't fit MY play style.

Again though, you don't lose the game by "failing" a cutscene.  You might lose some reputation or get a sub optimal result for the story, but there is no way to hit a "game over" screen from a dialogue tree.

That's just not the purpose dialogue serves in the DA franchise (thus far).

Some random other player playing their own game and picking their own options has literally NO affect on my playthroughs whatsoever even if I find the idea of playing that way horrible. Why force someone to play the way you do? The only way skipping combat is different than playing on casual is the amount of time wasted by sitting there pressing A over and over and watching your character backflip trough the air.

Ok so what about some of the other options discussed?  More diplomatic options to settle conflicts.  More covert/stealthy gameplay.  More deceptive persuasion choices etc.  On top of a better combat system, with less tedious "trash mob" fights.

All of those involve actually playing the game to progress and all routes would be perfectly valid and all offer a chance to fail.

Why is the go-to solution to let the AI run the fights over and over until you get a pass?  That sounds like the least imaginitive option to me.

EDIT: And it's really not about forcing people to play "my" way.  It seems a bit odd to label content gating as "my" way
when it's been the industry standard forever...  Want to beat Super Mario?  Well... play it!

Modifié par Taint Master, 17 juillet 2013 - 05:23 .

[MerinTB]

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
So, yeah, what you are saying that I am saying, that I'm asking for the game to be made easier when I've never even played it on casual - that's a logical fallacy called a straw man.  You are (at best) misunderstanding my argument or (at worst) misrepresenting my argument.[/quote]Having the game calculate end results for you outside of real time IS easier than playing it yourself.  You're taking all of the real time decisions out of the players hands and letting the game play it for you.   There is nothing fallacious about that statement.[/quote]

I'm saying that the ability for people to be able to fast forward / auto-resolve combats should be allowed.  I'm not asking for lowering the difficulty.  The auto-resolve would work as if all characters ran on tactics.  Anyone who plays nightmare knows you need to micro-manage and that tactics are not going to cut it.  Don't believe me?

Here's a trick - try this.  Boot up a save of DA:O, right before a tough fight.  Let's try the Golems DLC, one of the toughest fights in the game.  Go run that fight, on normal, with only three party members total with you controlling all three (you should be able to do this - if not, pick a different fight, say when trying to rescue Anora and you face Loghain's right-hand woman) and THEN run it again on normal, with four party members (three the exact same as before, and one more) but set the tactics for the three characters and leave the fourth with tactics off and run him/her just outside of the fight, basically keep the character from adding to the combat as much as possible, and let the combat proceed without your help.

Bet you beat the fight easy when you control the party of three, and bet the party dies when you rely on tactics.  Go give it a try.

This isn't reducing YOUR difficulty.  AT ALL.  Same difficulty.  Just some players get to fast forward - not actively participate.

Again - this doesn't change your game at all.  Stop caring about how others play the game - it is NONE of your concern.

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
If you're seriously trying to claim that having the game run through combat without player input is just as involved I can't take your position seriously.[/quote]

Well, I guess it's a darn good thing I'm not saying that.  At.  All.

Straw men are easy to knock down, aren't they?  Here, let me try -

Why do you need the game to only be playable by you?  I mean, games are made for anyone who wants to play them, not just you.  So why are you so selfish that you want no one else to be able to play the game?  Is your ego so fragile that you can't let anyone else beat the game - that you can be the only one to beat it?  Why do you insist that the combat be locked so only YOU can play it?

I cannot take you seriously if you say that the game should only be playable by you.  

That IS easy!
 
[quote]Taint Master wrote...
Do youreally expect me to take apart all of those terrible analogies? [/quote]

Expect you to?  Yes.  
Want you to?  No.

Analogies are not 1 = One.  Analogies are comparing two things by a common property.  Some analogies that are perfectly legitimate:

An orange is like a pearl - they are both spheres.
A CD is like an LP - they both store music by means of physical etchings on a disc.
Taint Master is like a first year philosophy student - they both have a lot to learn about logic.

Can you eat a pearl, and is an orange white?  No.  But the analogy fo them both being spheres is sound.  Had my analogy been "pearls grow on trees like oranges" then it would have been wrong.

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
I'll handle the driving/jogging one because it's just so ridiculous.  Of COURSE there's no reason for me to jog 2 miles if my goal is merely getting to my destination in a timely manner.  If my goal is exercise/getting fresh air etc,  then jogging is the better choice, but they serve two completely different functions.  That is nothing like the decision to skip or play a fight where my goal is simply to beat the encounter and progress through the game.  I can spend X minutes learning the mechanics, strategizing on my party composition, gear, plan of attack... or I can press one button and kill everything.[/quote]

Playing the game to the end is like moving 2 miles - both are journeys with a final goal in mind.
Jogging is like combat - how you traverse that journey also serves another purpose, be it exercise or enjoyment of tactical combat.
Driving the car is like focusing on the story and wanting to skip the combat -the journey is what matters, getting to the end, not the effort exerted in getting there.
The person who choses to jog the two miles is like the person chosing to fight all the combats - they are looking for more than the destination, more than the journey, as they want to put forth effort for their own reward.
The person driving is like the person wanting the story wihtout the combat - they aren't interested in what the effort will give them, they just want to take the trip and see the end destination.

The person who chooses to jog gets the same benefit of jogging two miles if everyone who undergoes the journey jogs the two miles, if half the people jog and half drive, if everyone but he drives, or if he's the only one who makes the journey.  Someone else driving doesn't alter the benefits the jogger gets.

The analogy is sound.  Two different ways of reaching an end goal, neither of which affects the other's choice of how to do it.

You continue to harp on the driver somehow lessening the impact of jogging for you.  It is a ridiculous assertion.


[quote]Taint Master wrote...
The fact that you think that is some kind of a brilliant comparison really illustrates why we're at cross purposes here...
[/quote]

The reality that you fail to see beyond your own myopic "RPGs need the combat, and the combat must be forced, or else why should I even bother to do the combat" stance is quite baffling to pretty much everyone.

Our cross-purposes is that I am for people choosing how they go through the game, and you are for forcing your way on everyone because otherwise your way somehow loses potency for you.

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
There's a huge difference between letting AI control your companions and having no player input at all.  Stop being so obtuse.
[/quote]

There certainly are many differences.  The key one for my purposes is saving certain gamers anywhere from roughly five to thirty minutes per combat in a game.  Especially for people who have limited schedules - not everyone can sink @130 hours into a playthrough of DA:O like I did on my first game.

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
What is the rationale behind this?  If someone has an easier time than you, your effort is worthless to you now?
[/quote]
If someone has an easier time, no.  If someone doesn't have to play through the content at all to get the same rewards and progression then absolutely. [/quote]

Why?

[quote]Taint Master wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
How about the creators of BioWare?  Can I count their opinion on the matter?
http://kotaku.com/53...as-the-new-shit[/quote]The opinions of two people who don't even work at the company any more are relevant because?[/quote]

Because they were for over a decade game designers, heading one of the more succesful game development studios in the world.

Because they are the force behind the games you are saying you are trying to defend?

Because you keep saying that we are "demanding" they do something - when, clearly, BioWare had already been considering this, seriously, on their own.

I dunno - it's relevant because you claimed only five people cared.  I gave you three more examples from my immediate family and two examples who created the studio behind the very games we are discussing.

You know, in a few sentences doubling that "five" without even trying.

But, by all means, continue the hyperbole.  Making yourself sound ridiculous does wonders for your credibility.

"What do the creators of BioWare's opinion on games in the future having no combat have to do with a discussion of BioWare games allowing people to fast-forward through combat?"

You are making this far too easy on me.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 juillet 2013 - 05:55 .

[The Hierophant]

Tbh there's no reason the option to skip combat shouldn't exist as it would only be optional. The only immediate issue i can think of when skipping combat in the DA series is that it potentially negates the possibility of defeat from the game, as DA's dialogue checks lack instances that could lead to game over.

Though i still wonder about the quality of combat if it's rendered optional.

[Taint Master]

MerinTB wrote...

I'm saying that the ability for people to be able to fast forward / auto-resolve combats should be allowed. I'm not asking for lowering the difficulty.

The two go hand in hand. That was the entire point.

In DA you can't progress past an encounter if you lose (outside of the rare scripted event), so the only way forward is to win. With auto resolve you don't have to learn any game mechanics, you don't have to micromanage anything, you don't even risk wasting your own time since the game calculates everything for you. If you lose, what's to stop you from instantly trying again? Characters need more gear? Go auto-resolve some easier fights until you're suited up. You can literally roll the dice until you "win."

That isn't just lowering difficulty, that's removing it entirely. Where is the game in that?

Well, I guess it's a darn good thing I'm not saying that. At. All.

Straw men are easy to knock down, aren't they?

That is incredibly ironic since you spent an entire paragraph misrepresenting my argument. If you're going to accuse people of logical fallacies, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly... and not rely on them yourself.  Although I guess that's par for the course in internet forum discussions!  Cringe-worthy.

Playing the game to the end is like moving 2 miles - both are journeys with a final goal in mind.
Jogging is like combat - how you traverse that journey also serves another purpose, be it exercise or enjoyment of tactical combat.
Driving the car is like focusing on the story and wanting to skip the combat -the journey is what matters, getting to the end, not the effort exerted in getting there.

You're setting up a false dichotomy that doesn't even apply to gaming. In DA the ultimate goal for everyone is to progress through the story. Cutscenes, character interaction, travel and combat are all a part of that progression, and combat is the primary gating mechanic. There is a challenge there that has to be overcome in order to beat the game. And that's an important distinction, because in the end it is first and foremost a game, not just an RP vehicle.

It is completely self defeating to design challenging gameplay content and then give players an option to skip all of it. It really is a waste of time for the developers as well as the players. Why are you so adamant that DA is in need of this change?

Our cross-purposes is that I am for people choosing how they go through the game, and you are for forcing your way on everyone because otherwise your way somehow loses potency for you.

Did you miss all of my posts discussing alternates to straight combat? Alternatives that don't in any way invalidate actually playing through the content.

Why?

Because there is no incentive to actually play the game as intended besides its intrinsic value (whatever that is). And if fewer players have incentive to play the content, devs have even less incentive to spend time and money on it. Game combat is at its best when it is meaningful. I feel like we're going around in circles here.

But, by all means, continue the hyperbole.

...Says the person claiming "many" people are in favor of this change. That's why we're on page 19 of a 2 week old thread. Yep, real hot button topic.

"What do the creators of BioWare's opinion on games in the future having no combat have to do with a discussion of BioWare games allowing people to fast-forward through combat?"

Are they working on DAI? Are they even designing games at all anymore? No? So what baring do you think a 5 year old interview has on this game exactly? Haha I wonder what Xbox's strategy will be post launch, let me go cite some ancient interview from Don Mattrick...

I would gladly wager that this won't be included in the final game but we both know there's no way you'd take that bet.

The Hierophant wrote...
The only immediate issue i can think
of when skipping combat in the DA series is that it potentially negates
the possibility of defeat from the game, as DA's dialogue checks lack
instances that could lead to game over.

Though i still wonder about the quality of combat if it's rendered optional.

Those are my exact concerns.  Though imo they are reason enough NOT to include it as an option, at least not without unlocking it.

Modifié par Taint Master, 17 juillet 2013 - 06:52 .

[Ridwan]

The funny thing is, this won't be added, cause no one other than a few people on this forum wants it. When Hepler stated that she wanted this, she was blasted by the gaming world.

[xkg]

The funny thing is, this will be added, cause everyone would love to have this feature, evaryone but just a few people in this thread - but no one cares about them.
When Hepler stated that she wanted this, she was blasted by a few trolls from 4chan + few pseudo journalists writing some BS just to boost the hit numbers of their pages.


See ? It's so easy to write baseless posts. Just like that.

But keep em comming. This thread turned into a pure comedy. The anti crowd "lalala I can't hear ya" attitude is hilarious

Modifié par xkg, 17 juillet 2013 - 08:12 .

[Ridwan]

xkg wrote...

The funny thing is, this will be added, cause everyone would love to have this feature, evaryone but just a few people in this thread - but no one cares about them.
When Hepler stated that she wanted this, she was blasted by a few trolls from 4chan + few pseudo journalists writing some BS just to boost the hit numbers of their pages.


See ? It's so easy to write baseless posts. Just like that.

But keep em comming. This thread turned into a pure comedy. The anti crowd "lalala I can't hear ya" attitude is hilarious

People on this forum also want full front nudity, male genetalia included, that ain't gonna happen either.

If skipping combat can be done without it taking time and money away from the actual gameplay and making the game run smooth and it removes gear and achievement from the players who do that (why after all do you need that awesome sword, when you're just gonna skip all the fights anyway) then I'll support it. But other than on this forum and with like what... 10 maybe 15 posters at the most supporting this, no one else is going to. The G stands for GAME. In games you play. If you want an interactive film experience, try Heavy Rain or go old school and play Gabriel Knight's Beast Within, but that would require you to spend time solving puzzles, can't have that can we?

Sometimes reading this forum, I'd imagine that you lot want nothing more than complete interactive film, starring nothing but transexuals cross dressers (even the monsters).

[Ridwan]

John Epler's stance on this issue

I think there's a distinction to be made between avoiding combat in an organic, 'in world' fashion versus a sort of meta-feature where you can easily or automatically resolve combat. In the former case, of course, it's far more of an investment, although it can certainly be a worthwhile one - especially if you let the player feel clever for avoiding the combat (STALKER (take a shot) does this to a degree, as the factional enemies will often fight each other, and every humanoid will fight a mutant. Patient or clever players can bait groups into conflict with each other and then let the chips fall as they may).

The latter is more mechanical, and in genres or sub genres where story or interactive narrative is an equally large draw as the combat and more traditional 'gameplay' elements, I really don't see an issue with allowing for some sort of easy resolve option for the fights. I'd hestitate to put in a 'skip combat completely' option, just because it feels as though it can be an easy way to ensure that fights have little narrative grounding. But a difficulty setting where your party can more or less take care of things by themselves and the risk of death is practically nonexistent? I don't really see any issue.

Of course, at the end of the day, everyone has different tolerances for these sorts of things. I'd be happy with a single-save, Dark Souls system where everything you do has lasting consequences on your character and a misstep can set you back half an hour or more. I realize that I am in the minority, however, and am in favour of providing as many people as possible the tools to enjoy our games. Me, I'd never use it, but why its existence should bother me is something I don't really understand.

[Ridwan]

Reading a thread similar to this, one year old. Funny how people always cite Dragon Age 2 combat as why they want to skip combat and not Dragon Age: Origins. Could it be that Dragon Age: Origins is a better designed game and Dragon Age 2 falls short on pratically everything?

Modifié par M25105, 17 juillet 2013 - 10:16 .

[reddead136]

Well, I'm not sure if a feature to auto win battles would be really fitting for a series like Dragon Age. Like it's been said the battles are what give players the fear of losing. ( Although in a game with an a feature to save whenever you want it's not much of a threat, lol.) Also in a game involving most likely some pretty good size battles it would be a little strange.

On the other hand the conversations are really my favorite part of the DA series especially in Origins. I could understand someone wanting to play these games just for that aspect alone and maybe they are not particularly good at combat in games. Although easy mode should fix that I'm sure some people still may be challenged by that.

So I guess overall I don't really think there should be a mode that does all the battles 100% for you. I feel that the combat is to much a part of the DA series to just have that feature. I do agree the trash mobs in DA 2 are very tiring though, but I don't think that they will be handled that way in DA: I.

[Ieldra]

M25105 wrote...
Reading a thread similar to this, one year old. Funny how people always cite Dragon Age 2 combat as why they want to skip combat and not Dragon Age: Origins. Could it be that Dragon Age: Origins is a better designed game and Dragon Age 2 falls short on piratically everything?

Sidenote:  bolded for emphasis

Of course. I don't think anybody can deny that DAO is way better designed in almost every way. However, the reasons why DA2's combat fails so hard are not necessarily identical to those that result in my desire to skip it, though there is overlap.

There are basically two different reasons why people lower the difficulty: first, the combat is too difficult for them or they don't want a challenge in this particular playthrough. Second, they want to get through the parts of the game that they're less interested in faster, for various reasons. The main problem is that in DA2, reducing difficulty to Casual does not reduce the time you spend in combat significantly compared to Normal difficulty. I.e. the problem is the abuse of the wave mechanic and the extreme number of enemies. Those elements are indeed design failures, but they're not the only ones. The insane speed which makes positioning tactics irrelevant, the nonsensical over-the-top animations and the lack of friendly fire which results in mindless AoE spamming are as much to blame. It's not just that I don't want to fight in DA2, it's that I don't even want to *watch* a fight because it catapults me right out of the world.

As for solutions to the problem, I'd be very glad if developers implemented in-world mechanisms to avoid combat like intimidation, enemies avoiding you because of your reputation, stealth etc..as a rule instead of an exception, but that, as Epler said in the quote in your previous post, is a significant investment. Some kind of "autowin" button is, while a lesser option, is much easier to implement.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juillet 2013 - 10:16 .

[xkg]

M25105 wrote...
People on this forum also want full front nudity, male genetalia included, that ain't gonna happen either.

And I should care about that because it is relevant to this discussion ... how ? People can want whatever they want, let them make their own threads about that.

M25105 wrote...
But other than on this forum and with like what... 10 maybe 15 posters at the most supporting this, no one else is going to.

And source to this claim is [insert it here]

Otherwise stop making things up, it only makes you look like a fool.

Everyone, everywhere loves this Idea. Only you and a few others here are against it.

M25105 wrote...
The G stands for GAME. In games you play. If you want an interactive film experience, try Heavy Rain or go old school and play Gabriel Knight's Beast Within, but that would require you to spend time solving puzzles, can't have that can we?

Yes it stands for GAME not COMBAT. There are hundreds of games with no cambat.

And seriously why am I even wasting my time. You seems completely clueless about game genres.
Suddenly one of the staples of Point And Click Adventure games is not a game, its for people who wants interactive films (btw, apparently they are considered to be games too as I already posted about that a few pages ago)

And Heavy Rain, last time I heard it is a very popular GAME amongst PS3 players. They are boasting about this exclusive to no ends. Go tell them your theory.

M25105 wrote...
starring nothing but transexuals cross dressers (even the monsters).

I don't know what did you try to achieve with this comment, and don't want to...

Modifié par xkg, 17 juillet 2013 - 10:44 .

[Taint Master]

Ieldra2 wrote...

M25105 wrote...
Reading a
thread similar to this, one year old. Funny how people always cite
Dragon Age 2 combat as why they want to skip combat and not Dragon Age:
Origins. Could it be that Dragon Age: Origins is a better designed game
and Dragon Age 2 falls short on piratically everything?

Sidenote: [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie] bolded for emphasis

Of course. I don't think anybody can deny that DAO is way better designed in almost every way. However, the reasons why DA2's combat fails so hard are not necessarily identical to those that result in my desire to skip
it, though there is overlap.

There are basically two different reasons why people lower the difficulty: first, the combat is too
difficult for them or they don't want a challenge in this particular playthrough. Second, they want to get through the parts of the game that they're less interested in faster, for various reasons. The main problem is that in DA2, reducing difficulty to Casual does not reduce the time you spend in combat significantly compared to Normal difficulty. I.e. the problem is the abuse of the wave mechanic and the extreme number of enemies. Those elements are indeed design failures, but they're not the only ones. The insane speed which makes positioning
tactics irrelevant, the nonsensical over-the-top animations and the lack of friendly fire which results in mindless AoE spamming are as much to blame. It's not just that I don't want to fight in DA2, it's that I don't even want to *watch* a fight because it catapults me right out of the world.

As for solutions to the problem, I'd be very glad if developers implemented in-world mechanisms to avoid combat like intimidation, enemies avoiding you because of your reputation, stealth etc..as a rule instead of an exception, but that, as Epler said in the quote in your previous post, is a significant investment. Some kind of "autowin" button is, while a lesser option, is much easier to implement.

Honestly I agree with this entire post.  And while I personally wouldn't want to see Bioware take the easy way out with an auto win mechanic, everything you mentioned in the second paragraph needs to be addressed by Bioware for DAI.  A lot of DA2 just plain wasn't fun.  If they can capture what they had with DAO and improve upon it (adding friendly fire back to normal difficulty is a good first step) then maybe people will feel less inclined to completely check out in combat.

M25105 wrote...

Sometimes reading this forum, I'd imagine that you lot want nothing more than complete interactive film, starring nothing but transexuals cross dressers (even the monsters).

Ain't that the truth!?

Honestly, why even skirt around the issuse?  Just flat out ask Bioware to make a dating/social sim game and be done with it. 

I'm not even being facetious.  If we're being honest, that's really what the ultra adamant "I-win" button crowd is getting at here, isn't it? 

So why not?  You could RP your romantic fantasies with whatever gender/species you want, without any mention of combat. 

Some of the more balanced posters see value in pushing for more varied gameplay that gives multiple options towards problem solving.  Just about everyone agrees that combat can be much improved... and yet a select few individuals are apparently having none of that! 

Any gameplay that challenges the player just slows down all that "story" so all adversity should be skippable... in a game where you assume the role of a legendary war hero... 

<_<

Modifié par Taint Master, 17 juillet 2013 - 10:54 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Taint Master wrote...

Why is the go-to solution to let the AI run the fights over and over until you get a pass?  That sounds like the least imaginitive option to me.

Why is the go-to solution for padding out a game to shove more combat into it? That sounds equally unimaginative.

If that's the industry standard, I'm all for an unimaginative solution until the standard changes. The way games are these days though, I doubt that'll be any time soon.

 Want to beat Super Mario?  Well... play it!

It's not about beating the game, or bragging about highscores, or zooming ahead as fast as possible. For a lot of RPGers, it's not about winning. It's about experiencing the parts of the game we enjoy like exploration and NPC interaction without being frustrated/bored by the parts we occasionally don't want to waste time on.

I play on Normal mode every time, and I doubt I'd skip a single combat on my first time through the game. But I wouldn't give a damn if someone else did. Hell, I'd welcome a way to skip combat on my replays because I sure didn't go through DA2 again for its combat.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 17 juillet 2013 - 11:02 .

[Ridwan]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Taint Master wrote...

Why is the go-to solution to let the AI run the fights over and over until you get a pass?  That sounds like the least imaginitive option to me.

Why is the go-to solution for padding out a game to shove more combat into it? That sounds equally unimaginative.

If that's the industry standard, I'm all for an unimaginative solution until the standard changes. The way games are these days though, I doubt that'll be any time soon.

 Want to beat Super Mario?  Well... play it!

It's not about beating the game, or bragging about highscores, or zooming ahead as fast as possible. For a lot of RPGers, it's not about winning. It's about experiencing the parts of the game we enjoy like exploration and NPC interaction without being frustrated/bored by the parts we occasionally don't want to waste time on.

I play on Normal mode every time, and I doubt I'd skip a single combat on my first time through the game. But I wouldn't give a damn if someone else did. Hell, I'd welcome a way to skip combat on my replays because I sure didn't go through DA2 again for its combat.

There we go, another poster listing Dragon Age 2 and its combat. I hope you're taking note Bioware. What about the combat in Origins, how do you feel about that?

[Zazzerka]

The worst part is how left out Sandal would feel.

[xkg]

"I want a skip combat button" --> "I want a social dating sim game, so i can RP my fantasies, including transsexual crossdressing"

Looks like making an idiot from yourself on the forum is trendy nowadays.


Hahahah Hahahaha ... just let me finish, I can't stop .... hahahahah looolllololololol

Ok. Keep em coming. Moaaar please.
*chomp, chomp, chomp* Popcorn anyone ?

Modifié par xkg, 17 juillet 2013 - 11:18 .

[Zazzerka]

Also potion vendors.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

M25105 wrote...

What about the combat in Origins, how do you feel about that?

I felt better about the combat in DA:O for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it felt more strategic in its execution (I felt similarly about some of the DA2 DLCs), you could scout, you could evade, you could flee. But DA:O was also a lot more open in terms of terrain, whereas DA2's maps could be so closed in it was like you were being funnelled into each and every encounter.

However, that's not to say I was crazy about DA:O's combat. It was better than DA2's in that the fights were infinitely more varied and atmospheric, but I didn't love it. There are few games in which I love the combat system, and view it more as a necessary evil of a game genre I otherwise enjoy.  

[Taint Master]

Zazzerka wrote...

Also potion vendors.

Morrigan wears a moustache surprisingly well.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

M25105 wrote...

What about the combat in Origins, how do you feel about that?

I
felt better about the combat in DA:O for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which it felt more strategic in its execution (I felt similarly
about some of the DA2 DLCs), you could scout, you could evade, you
could flee. But DA:O was also a lot more open in terms of terrain,
whereas DA2's maps could be so closed in it was like you were being
funnelled into each and every encounter.

However, that's not to say I was crazy about DA:O's combat. It was better than DA2's in that the fights were infinitely more varied and atmospheric, but I didn't love
it. There are few games in which I love the combat system, and view it
more as a necessary evil of a game genre I otherwise enjoy.  

So would you agree the ultimate goal would be to find a balance that's dynamic, enjoyable and avoids tedium?  I think that's really what most of us want.  A skip combat option just sweeps the problem under the rug instead of really dealing with it.

[Ieldra]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
It's not about beating the game, or bragging about highscores, or zooming ahead as fast as possible. For a lot of RPGers, it's not about winning. It's about experiencing the parts of the game we enjoy like exploration and NPC interaction without being frustrated/bored by the parts we occasionally don't want to waste time on.

I think this needs to be emphasized, since there are some people who don't understand this. Especially for those with experience in tabletop roleplaying, things like "beating the game" are strictly secondary. Speaking for this group for a moment (correct me if I'm wrong), building a powerful character or team, finding good tactics against certain enemies etc.. is something we do while playing and have various degrees of fun with, but it's not why we play the game.

I play on Normal mode every time, and I doubt I'd skip a single combat on my first time through the game. But I wouldn't give a damn if someone else did. Hell, I'd welcome a way to skip combat on my replays because I sure didn't go through DA2 again for its combat.

Yeah, I have several completed DAO playthroughs waiting for being imported into DA2, and the only reason why they're still waiting is that I can't reduce the time I spend with DA2's combat enough. I guess I'll have to put up with the killallhostiles cheat and hope it won't f*ck up my quest flags.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juillet 2013 - 12:39 .

[Cheylus]

Why not, but not in DA:I.
I already mod some games in order to have enough money, items or XP to prevent grinding. I usually look at ways to improve my inventory limitation if there is one. I used a mod to skip an entire level (the Fade in DA:O). In other games, I sometimes used the one-hit kill console command when the combat doesn't interest me, looks forced, cheap and uninspired.
But skipping combat in latest BioWare game is already in game in my opinion. "Narrative" or "very easy" difficulties are enough. I don't want to skip combat in a Dragon Age game because I feel BioWare has to improve themself in this department, and I don't want to tell them to give up. Combats can tell a story and be emotional, even more than a dialog.

Modifié par Cheylus, 17 juillet 2013 - 12:41 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Taint Master wrote...

So would you agree the ultimate goal would be to find a balance that's dynamic, enjoyable and avoids tedium?  I think that's really what most of us want.

Frankly, that's a good balance for just about anything to have, but it's impossible to make any one thing enjoyable for everyone. What's more, many people will naturally want to bypass things that they don't necessarily dislike for the things that they really like. And there's nothing wrong with that, especially if they are time-poor.

Would it be awesome if combat was dynamic, enjoyable and lacked grind? Hell, yes. Bring it on! But that doesn't mean people will always want to play out that combat, much less on every replay. Before I said I play for dialogue, plot and story, yet I'll skip parts of that on replay too! Because some parts I find more interesting than others.

A skip combat option just sweeps the problem under the rug instead of really dealing with it.

I don't agree. A skip combat option does not preclude developers working on a more sophisticated approach to combat and random encounters in general.

I thnk you are more worried that developers would treat it as a solution instead of a tool for players to make use of at their discretion, so let me pose you a hypothetical situation:

Let's say combat worked fine and no one thought it was grindy, but some people still wanted to skip it from time to time to get to the parts of the game they preferred. Would it still be wrong? There's no problem to sweep under the rug at this point. It's pure playstyle preference.

[Realmzmaster]

I think the fear some posters have is that the developers will not work as hard on combat and random encounters if a skip combat button is implemented. Whether that is true or not is immaterial because some gamers perceive that to be the case. That perception leads them to protect that aspect of game play.
The same could be said for the skip dialogue implementation. Early crpgs had no way of skipping the dialogue. In fact you could not because there were no real cut scenes like in present crpgs.
The earlier crpgs so called cut scenes were implemented like banter except with text that the gamer had to give a response..

[ioannisdenton]

Da2 combat is way more challenging and tactical than DaO.
DaO combat is shallow compared to Da2 in my humble opinion.
I grew to love Da2's combat even though i absolutely despised it in my first 2 playthoughs of Da2.