809 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Nefla wrote...

Anyone playing a BioWare game for the combat instead of the story/characters/lore/dialogue is doing it wrong...

Why? If playing for combat is his/her playstyle that in no way affects your playing style. People play Bioware games for different reasons.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

o Ventus wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

What makes you think that the people asking for an option to speed up/skip combat would use this on every combat? Who has said this? Where? Please quote it for us.

I'll do that just as soon as you quote the part where I said the bolded.

Sure thing:

Unless skipping entire areas of travel is also an option, the game will play out like this:

Travel on-foot to NPC -> NPC is hostile; fight ensues -> fight is skipped -> continue running to town -> repeat ad infinitum for each quest that takes place outside the current town.

This coupled with your 'running simulator' statement strongly implies that you believe once people have the option to skip combat, they will always use it.

If that is not what you meant, then please enlighten us.

If it is what you meant, it's your turn to provide a quote.

Gameplay =! Game. Exploration and non-combat quests qualify as gameplay. Dialogue is fuzzier. The codex is straight-up not.

Yeah, sorry, I'm still amused.

You do realise that you get experience in Dragon Age for more than killing stuff, right?

I'm fully aware. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of XP gains in DA (and other western RPGs) aren't done via combat. Which was my point.

What does this matter if the vast majority of skills and spells available to leveled characters are only useful in combat?

You can get your point across without being overtly hostile.

I'll try to be less overtly hostile if you take the time to read and understand why people are asking for the subject matter.

[Nefla]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Nefla wrote...

Anyone playing a BioWare game for the combat instead of the story/characters/lore/dialogue is doing it wrong...

Why? If playing for combat is his/her playstyle that in no way affects your playing style. People play Bioware games for different reasons.

Because bioware combat has always been a weak point and bioware is famous for its stories/characters/lore/etc...Playing a bioware game for combat is like playing Red Dead Redemption for its animal management rather than a game where animal management is a focus. I think it is incredibly silly to play a BW game for combat when there are plenty of games that are combat centered and do it MUCH better. My point however was not to say other people can't do that, but to respond to those saying that if you skip combat you're playing the wrong game, there's no point in playing it if the combat was skippable, etc...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nefla wrote...

Because bioware combat has always been a weak point

I completely disagree.  Combat has long been the thing BioWare does best (at least, until DA2 and ME2).  They largely pioneered RTwP combat, which quickly became my favourite type of combat ever.

I think it is incredibly silly to play a BW game for combat when there are plenty of games that are combat centered and do it MUCH better.

BioWare has been largely moving in the wrong direction for the past 14 years or so, but until quite recently the quality of their combat was being maintained, or even improved.

[Realmzmaster]

Nefla wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Nefla wrote...

Anyone playing a BioWare game for the combat instead of the story/characters/lore/dialogue is doing it wrong...

Why? If playing for combat is his/her playstyle that in no way affects your playing style. People play Bioware games for different reasons.

Because bioware combat has always been a weak point and bioware is famous for its stories/characters/lore/etc...Playing a bioware game for combat is like playing Red Dead Redemption for its animal management rather than a game where animal management is a focus. I think it is incredibly silly to play a BW game for combat when there are plenty of games that are combat centered and do it MUCH better. My point however was not to say other people can't do that, but to respond to those saying that if you skip combat you're playing the wrong game, there's no point in playing it if the combat was skippable, etc...

Actually Bioware's combat has been one of its strong points starting with BG1 and continuing (IMHO) to DA2. A game does not have to be combat centered to have good combat and have gamers play it for that reason. Just because a game developer does combat better than Bioware does not perclude a gamer from liking Bioware games for its combat and seeing the other aspects as gravy.

[ejoslin]

I really liked DAO's combat system -- the first couple of times I played the game, it was challenging. DA2 was too over-the-top for me, but that may be because I didn't like the animations and the waves.

That DAO's combat quit being challenging for me after awhile is not surprising -- I've never played a game in which the combat did not become easy after I learned all of the tricks. I can't blame the game for that. But at first, I really had to think.

[luna1124]

What I meant was, IN THE GAME IF it was like real life, you couldn't just skip a fight with say Dark-spawn by talking them out of it. Not "real-life" as in Real life.

[Olmerto]

Well, I'm glad the OP and other proponents have concluded that there's no good or valid reason not to have skippable combat, so all BW has to do is implement it. Good luck with that.

[xkg]

luna1124 wrote...

What I meant was, IN THE GAME IF it was like real life, you couldn't just skip a fight with say Dark-spawn by talking them out of it. Not "real-life" as in Real life.

Yes, I get that. Thats why I mentioned the trip from Redcliff to the Circle Tower.
IN THE GAME IF it was like real life, you couldn't just teleport from one place to another.You would have to walk for the entire day. Here it's done in a blink of an eye.

Modifié par xkg, 19 juillet 2013 - 01:52 .

[o Ventus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare has been largely moving in the wrong direction for the past 14 years or so, but until quite recently the quality of their combat was being maintained, or even improved.

Considering that the company was founded in '95, you're saying they've been "moving in the wrong direction" (which is a phrase loaded with so much subjectivity that it borders on meaninglessness) since '99?

Have you never played KoTOR, Jade Empire, ME1 and 2, DAO, or NWN?

[xkg]

Olmert wrote...

Well, I'm glad the OP and other proponents have concluded that there's no good or valid reason not to have skippable combat, so all BW has to do is implement it. Good luck with that.

Thanks, can't wait for it.

[o Ventus]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

This coupled with your 'running simulator' statement strongly implies that you believe once people have the option to skip combat, they will always use it.

That isn't at all what the message was. You can choose to read it that way, but that's your fault, not mine.

What does this matter if the vast majority of skills and spells available to leveled characters are only useful in combat?

Because there are a good number of non-combat skills that require advancing levels to train? Coercion/Persuasion, Alchemy, Trap-making, Lock-picking, just to name a few.

I'll try to be less overtly hostile if you take the time to read and understand why people are asking for the subject matter.

You'll forgive me if I don't find it necessary to read 20+ pages to make 1 reply.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

[quote]o Ventus wrote...

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

This coupled with your 'running simulator' statement strongly implies that you believe once people have the option to skip combat, they will always use it.[/quote]

That isn't at all what the message was. You can choose to read it that way, but that's your fault, not mine.[/quote]

And when asked to clarify what you meant, you choose not to.

So be it.

[quote]What does this matter if the vast majority of skills and spells available to leveled characters are only useful in combat?[/quote]

Because there are a good number of non-combat skills that require advancing levels to train? Coercion/Persuasion, Alchemy, Trap-making, Lock-picking, just to name a few.[/quote]

All of those except lock-picking were removed from DA2, and I could easily live without leveling a skill that doesn't net me anything but poultices and torn trousers.

Alchemy and trap-making are generally only useful for fighting in combat or mitigating combat damage.

Coercion/Persuasion, while nice, didn't appear in dialogues all that often. I have played without it.

Furthermore, while I will agree that combat is the main way we earn experience and level in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2, it need not stay that way. I mean, it's not like it makes sense that one improves a skill like coercion or lockpicking by running darkspawn through with a sword. Or do you disagree?

[quote][quote]I'll try to be less overtly hostile if you take the time to read and understand why people are asking for the subject matter.[/quote]

You'll forgive me if I don't find it necessary to read 20+ pages to make 1 reply.

[/quote]

And you'll forgive me if I have little patience for people who start posting opinions about an issue with the opening "I don't understand", yet make no effort to try. It makes these people seem like they are only there to post their opinions, not to understand the problem.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 19 juillet 2013 - 02:21 .

[o Ventus]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

And when asked to clarify what you meant, you choose not to.
So be it.

It was a hypothetical. I have no idea how people will choose to play.

All of those except lock-picking were removed from DA2, and I could easily live without leveling a skill that doesn't net me anything but poultices and torn trousers.
Alchemy and trap-making are generally only useful for fighting in combat or mitigating combat damage.
Coercion/Persuasion, while nice, didn't appear in dialogues all that often. I have played without it.

Good for you.

Furthermore, while I will agree that combat is the main way we earn experience and level in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2, it need not stay that way. I mean, it's not like it makes sense that one improves a skill like coercion or lockpicking by running darkspawn through with a sword. Or do you disagree?

I don't know about anyone else, by almost every single modern RPG I've played utilizes the same (or very similar) system in regards to XP, that being that XP is gained through combat, exploration, and completing quests. Dragon Age is not Skyrim, where skills are advanced on-the-spot as you go about doing them.

And you'll forgive me if I have little patience for people who start posting opinions about an issue with the opening "I don't understand", yet make no effort to try. It makes these people seem like they are only there to post their opinions, not to understand the problem.

No, I won't forgive you. If your first instinct is to just attack what I say without considering a meaningful response, then you can rightly **** off.

[esper]

First for the auto-win/auto-resolve thing. I would not mind the option to have such a thing.simple so I would be able to skip over some parts of the game.

In da:o I would really like to play the game again and make some different choices for roleplay, but the combat in da:o is so painfully slow and that it drags on forever. There are two specific areas Kokari Wild and The Deep Road where my feeling is that it is combat, combat, and combat and if I could skip over combat I would be able to actually play the game again, but as it is I usally lose interest around these parts and thus never comes to the part I want to replay, sucking all enjoyment of replaying the game out of it.

Another example. I am not afraid to say that I play visual novels and visual novels.stats sim hybrids and as some most would know game play in those genres is mostly read through a bunch of text and occisionally picking a choice in a menu. Yet most visual novels I have played feature an option to skip over once read text which essentially mean that you can skip 99% of the game. Why does they have that options, simply because most who make these kind of games knows that people who re-play visual novels often do it to see a new branch and thus having to read their least liked places would be tedious and there offer the oppotunity to skip over it.

MerinTB wrote...

(snip)

If you disregard what people really mean when they say that old saw, which is not preciesly what the words, by themselves, directly state.  There is a different implied meaning...



... and there I lost you.

I know this is completely off topic, but I have to ask here. What is the other implied meaning of the end justify the means, other than the end justify the means? I am simply curious.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

o Ventus wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

And when asked to clarify what you meant, you choose not to.
So be it.

It was a hypothetical. I have no idea how people will choose to play.

Then why do you care if people would choose to skip some combats? Because you're concerned they won't level their characters? Isn't that up to them?

All of those except lock-picking were removed from DA2, and I could easily live without leveling a skill that doesn't net me anything but poultices and torn trousers.
Alchemy and trap-making are generally only useful for fighting in combat or mitigating combat damage.
Coercion/Persuasion, while nice, didn't appear in dialogues all that often. I have played without it.

Good for you.

Only tackling the last comment, eh?

Furthermore, while I will agree that combat is the main way we earn experience and level in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2, it need not stay that way. I mean, it's not like it makes sense that one improves a skill like coercion or lockpicking by running darkspawn through with a sword. Or do you disagree?

I don't know about anyone else, by almost every single modern RPG I've played utilizes the same (or very similar) system in regards to XP, that being that XP is gained through combat, exploration, and completing quests. Dragon Age is not Skyrim, where skills are advanced on-the-spot as you go about doing them.

So you don't think Dragon Age, or indeed other modern RPGs, should evolve their leveling system? Because that's simply how most of them do it, they should keep doing it that way?

[snipped hostility]

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 19 juillet 2013 - 02:46 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

esper wrote...

I know this is completely off topic, but I have to ask here. What is the other implied meaning of the end justify the means, other than the end justify the means? I am simply curious.

The spirit of the saying is actually questioning if it's ok to do something immoral if the end result turns out to be beneficial or good. It's supposed to be a dilemma of conscience.

I believe Sylvius is arguing that 'Do the ends justify the means?' is dependent entirely upon what someone wants their outcome to be, thus if the outcome is achieved then the means must have been justified, which seems to be tackling the question from an angle of practicality rather than morality (though correct me if I'm wrong. It's 1am and I'm going to bed after this post )

[esper]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

esper wrote...

I know this is completely off topic, but I have to ask here. What is the other implied meaning of the end justify the means, other than the end justify the means? I am simply curious.

The spirit of the saying is actually questioning if it's ok to do something immoral if the end result turns out to be beneficial or good. It's supposed to be a dilemma of conscience.

I believe Sylvius is arguing that 'Do the ends justify the means?' is dependent entirely upon what someone wants their outcome to be, thus if the outcome is achieved then the means must have been justified, which seems to be tackling the question from an angle of practicality rather than morality (though correct me if I'm wrong. It's 1am and I'm going to bed after this post )

Hmm... Okay, I see. I have mostly seemed it used for either self justification from characters doing something they are not comfortable with it and thus not being enitirely honest with themself about their end goals or used as a dismissal of someone else's argument with the opposite 'the end doesn't justify the means'.

Though I would say from a moral stand point the end does justify the means, because if it doesn't you are not honest with yourself about, or simply not aware of, the end goal you are going for.

Anyway thank you for answering.:happy:

[MerinTB]

esper wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If you disregard what people really mean when they say that old saw, which is not preciesly what the words, by themselves, directly state.  There is a different implied meaning...



... and there I lost you.

I know this is completely off topic, but I have to ask here. What is the other implied meaning of the end justify the means, other than the end justify the means? I am simply curious.

StM is a literalist.  Literally.  As in exact definition of words, no implied meanings.
 
So when he is talking about "the ends justify the means" and "if you are arguing the ends didn't justify the means, then you failed to properly define your end goal" he is ACTUALLY treating the phrase as a logic statement.

IF <action> acheives <end>, THEN <end> justified <action.>

So, as far as he is concerned about the explicit, absolute, mathematically precise meaning of the words in the following example -

IF <killing everyone on Earth> achieves <an end to overpopulation>, THEN <an end to overpopulation> justified <killing everyone on Earth.>

What he'll refuse to take into consideration, as it it not explicitly stated, is that the IMPLIED reasoning for wanting to end overpopulation is so that humans can survive on the planet into perpetuity.  He will argue that the ends there clearly justified the means and if we disagree it is because we haven't properly defined the desired end goal (or disagree with the end goal.)

He'd want us to say -

IF <killing everyone on Earth> does not achieve <an end to overpopulation so that humanity can survive on the planet into perpetuity>, THEN <an end to overpopulation so that humanity can survive on the planet into perpetuity> does not justify <killing everyone on Earth.>

And then he'll say that killing two out of three people every generation would be justified by the end goal.

You have to understand how StM thinks - which, arguably, only he really does.

But I knew there'd be no telling him he's wrong on that--since, in his way of seeing language, he is NOT wrong.

Also, there's this too -

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
The spirit of the saying is actually questioning if it's ok to do something immoral if the end result turns out to be beneficial or good. It's supposed to be a dilemma of conscience.

I believe Sylvius is arguing that 'Do the ends justify the means?' is dependent entirely upon what someone wants their outcome to be, thus if the outcome is achieved then the means must have been justified, which seems to be tackling the question from an angle of practicality rather than morality (though correct me if I'm wrong. It's 1am and I'm going to bed after this post )

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 juillet 2013 - 03:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

esper wrote...

First for the auto-win/auto-resolve thing. I would not mind the option to have such a thing.simple so I would be able to skip over some parts of the game.

In da:o I would really like to play the game again and make some different choices for roleplay, but the combat in da:o is so painfully slow and that it drags on forever. There are two specific areas Kokari Wild and The Deep Road where my feeling is that it is combat, combat, and combat and if I could skip over combat I would be able to actually play the game again, but as it is I usally lose interest around these parts and thus never comes to the part I want to replay, sucking all enjoyment of replaying the game out of it.

 

As has been mentioned countless times, this completely severs the ability to have gameplay/story integration. DA:O (and ME1) didn't have a lot of it, but it is completely removed in DA2 (and ME2 and ME3) How well you do or the steps you take in combat have no impact on the story or the events of the game. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If you take more than two minutes to fight the Arishok, does it result in the other Qunari jumping in the fray? If you don't position your party to protect the captured Templar, does Tarohe's minions kill him? Does using magic during combat in front of those who would have objections to it (either in your party or other NPCs) cause a reaction?

The answer is, of course, no.

This was present in brief flashes in DA:O, such as the Redcliffe battle, where an NPC recruited to fight the zombies could die... die not through a cut scene or the result of a specific dialogue choice, but through the action/inaction in combat. These types of variations make the game much more engaging for many players, as combat isn't just an activity where you plow through until the conflict is over, but rather a challenge where there is more at play than a binary "die-and-reload or win" factor at play.

If you could just press a button and skip the Redcliffe fight, would Lloyd, the blacksmith, the Elven spy and the Dwarven mercernary all just be dead automatically? If so, that would severely penalize those who use this feature. Would it let everyone live automatically? That would make it seem unnecessarily risky to ever engage in combat. Would certain NPCs always live, others always die? Then players will accuse devs of making canon certain character outcomes. Would the results be randomized? Players will then just reload the game until they get the perfect result, complaining that the devs are forcing them to waste their time with mindless load screens instead of mindless combat. Would the results be stat based? Then players will complain that the game mechanics promote only certain types of power leveling and penalized those who want to experiment with their builds, but may not want to fight in every encounter.

It quickly becomes a headache where any attempt to desegregate gameplay (combat) from story is considered for implementation, when it already is hard enough as is. As an example, who would ever become a blood Mage if there were negative story penalties for doing so, but where you could press a button and win every fight without a scratch? Why would you need that forbidden power when there is nothing you would actually be struggling against?

I sympathize with those who don't like combat, since I found DA2 nearly unbeatable on replays because of it. But skipping combat will forever mean combat is its own segment of the game, completely encapsulated, with no effect or consequence on anything other than "win/lose." Which ultimately hurts the game, as it is no longer attempting to be a unified experience, but a set of unconnected, fractured series of features and events. Which can seriously hurt the overall experience. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 juillet 2013 - 05:08 .

[Wulfram]

You could always limit the "skip combat" to the less important or interesting battles, and not allow it for the ones with story important. Or you could just assume it's basically intended to be super easy mode, and give the best outcome for free.

Not that Bioware seem especially interested in the form of integration you talk about anyway. Probably because it tends to be highly annoying. If we're not going to get it anyway, making it harder wouldn't exactly be a cost

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Or you could just assume it's basically intended to be super easy mode, and give the best outcome for free.

I'm fine with a super easy mode, like ME3's narrative mode. Enemies go down insanely easy and do next to no damage. Theoretically, you could still fail some gameplay/story integration/desegregation instances with this difficulty level. A good example is in ME1 at the Feros colony, where you only had a limited amount of gas grenades that would knock the possessed colonists out harmlessly. Even on the easiest difficulty, you could not use your grenades wisely and wind up having to kill the colonists in combat, resulting in their specific characters being dead and (obviously) unable to converse with them after the colony is saved. 

Not that Bioware seem especially interested in the form of integration you talk about anyway. Probably because it tends to be highly annoying. If we're not going to get it anyway, making it harder wouldn't exactly be a cost

I don't know of why these types of events/encountes existed in DAO/ME1, but not in subsequent games. However, I feel it would be a waste for Bioware to abandon the concept entirely. 

[xkg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
As an example, who would ever become a blood Mage if there were negative story penalties for doing so, but where you could press a button and win every fight without a scratch? Why would you need that forbidden power when there is nothing you would actually be struggling against?

For the life of me, I can't understand this argument. 

According to this logic there is no point in playing games with built in cheat menus/cheat codes.

For example, so popular Sid Meier's Civilization II.
It has a cheat menu. You can alter many things there including the gold, speed the research progress, you can even change the game period.
But that's not all. Anytime during the game, you can simply type "GOD" on keyobard to become invincible.

There is no incentive to use any startegy, do any researches, build  any units because you can simply become invincible and win the game. (according to you)
So, do you think there is no point in playing these game ?

Am I missing something here ?