809 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

There are so many ways to solve this "problem" that I cannot even fathom why you consider it a problem -

1 - People who are "passing on actively fighting" (heretofore abbreviated as PAF) a combat (be that "skip", "auto-win", "fast forward" or "auto-resolve") are, at least for that combat, not interested in their efforts affecting the outcome of that particular combat.  So there are several actions you can take with that assumption:

1A - If the player wants to make sure the best outcome possible happens (for whatever motivation they have for that), then they simply choose to play that battle until they get that results.  Changes to the game for those players by having a "PAF" they don't select - ZERO

1B - If the player is PAF the combat but wants to be fairly sure they succeed at it, the PAF system can be designed in one of the following ways -

1B1 - auto-win (most favorable outcome happens automatically)
1B2 - auto-resolve with character build / equipment level judgement (like how Total War and Wizard's Crown determines it, or (from BioWare) how ME3 uses the aggregate War Assets score to determine how well the battle goes OR how ME2 used the enhancements to the Normandy OR how the Keep in DA:A used a NWN2 Stronghold system to determine how well it defended --- long story short, flags are set on the characters and party and compared to flags on the combat being auto-resolved

1C - If the story is dead-important that you cannot be allowed to, for cut-scenes mid-battle and other cinematic storytelling constraints, PAF a given vital combat... then no PAF option is allowed that combat.  There are endless examples in games where tactics (in-character AS WELL AS game mechanics usable by the player) get de-activated for certain fights.  This would be just one more example of "on the filler fights with nameless goons, you can PAF, on story-heavy key fights, you cannot PAF."

I think that's enough answer to your concerns.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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?

Combat has always been segregated from other gameplay in all but the most outlier of game systems (i.e. Dungeon World), this allowance of people more interested in story than personally fighting the fights, doesn't change that.

What you are complaining about is not a symptom of what is being advocated - it is a reality of the vast majority of games.  At least we've moved mostly on from the days of Bard's Tale or SSI's Gold Box games, which must really bust your britches about said segregation! (I miss those days and want them back!)

That said...

Combat, even with PAF, doesn't have to be story agnostic.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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. 

Again, I think MANY people are not combat-haters who are supportive of this function.  I love me some combat!  SOME combat.  Not endless combat.  Big reason I fell out of JRPG's long ago - the "random encounters" never left them like they did for most western RPGs.  I hate random fights - I like STORY fights.

If you cut out all filler combat, all nameless henchmen battles, all arbitrary spiders and rats, and left ONLY story plotted, story significant, story-advancing fights...
I think you'd not only have your problem solved, but a lot of the desire for PAF would disappear.

You do THAT, however, and you truly DO upset the people who LOVE combat, all the combat, and want more of it.  That would alienate many players.  It would directly and implicitly harm the enjoyment of a good portion of the gamers who play these games.

PAF, IMO, is a far more elegant and less intrusive means of satisfying more people while changing less of the gameplay people already love.

[Fast Jimmy]

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 ?

You also get called a "Cheater" when you win the game, making sure all of your accomplishments and scores have a big asterisk on them, showing you didn't play by the rules.


Regardless, why would a player use Blood Magic, other than for the evil lolz? How can we seriously appreciate the struggle of what a Mage might think or go through in making that decision if the struggle is never actually experienced? In lore, Templars can't block blood magic, due to its source not being the Fade. If we were to fight a large amount of Templars in this upcoming Mage/Templar conflict, would there not be practical reasons for blood magic in combat? If there is really a war going on, would having more power, allowing you to perhaps save innocent NPCs in combat, be with the price?

A combat system that makes the most goody two-shoes player actually consider being a vilified blood Mage (and then having the game react to that choice) would be an amazing experience.

Instead, with an "I Win" button, blood magic would be reserved for a playthrough where a player says "okay, I want to be an evil blood Mage who slaughters puppies and drinks the marrow from their bones." Which makes the entire concept into a caricature, not an actual struggle.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:01 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
You also get called a "Cheater" when you win the game, making sure all of your accomplishments and scores have a big asterisk on them, showing you didn't play by the rules.

I couldn't give a moldy, disease-ridden, flying-fig less about acheivements or the virtual ego's of people comparing their digital trophy walls to others.

Those people need to join a sport or get a hobby that involves real competition, not a single-player video game patting their back for finishing the entire experience on Nightmare.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Regardless, why would a player use Blood Magic, other than for the evil lolz? How can we seriously appreciate the struggle of what a Mage might think or go through in making that decision if the struggle is never actually experienced? In lore, Templars can't block blood magic, due to its source not being the Fade. If we were to fight a large amount of Templars in this upcoming Mage/Templar conflict, would there not be practical reasons for blood magic in combat? If there is really a war going on, would having more power, allowing you to perhaps save innocent NPCs in combat, be with the price?

A combat system that makes the most goody two-shoes player actually consider being a vilified blood Mage (and then having the game react to that choice) would be an amazing experience.

Instead, with an "I Win" button, blood magic would be reserved for a playthrough where a player says "okay, I want to be an evil blood Mage who slaughters puppies and drinks the marrow from their bones." Which makes the entire concept into a caricature, not an actual struggle.

...

I'm sorry, Fast Jimmy.

I just don't see how one relates to the other.

(warning, analogy time!)

I want there to be good acting in the movies I watch.  But if there are great digital effects in the film, then many people won't care about the acting.
To get good acting, we must remove all digital effects!

...

Did THAT make sense to you?  Cause that's how I'm reading your concern.

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

scyphozoa wrote...

I also want to say, as most people here regard Dragon Age Origins quite highly, and enjoyed playing that game. I have played DAO entirely through full completionist playthroughs using only the console command Runscript Killallhostiles.

So if you enjoyed DAO, you did so while the option for me to mechanically circumvent ALL combat was available and built into the game. It did not make DAO any less of an entertaining or quality product.

You could also use the modkit to make weapons and armor that make you nigh invincible. So let's make armor and weapons optional, as well. Since there is a way to abuse the game and make them void. 

Is that the argument you are making?

[Sylvius the Mad]

scyphozoa wrote...

So if you enjoyed DAO, you did so while the option for me to mechanically circumvent ALL combat was available and built into the game. It did not make DAO any less of an entertaining or quality product.

Exactly.

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

Regardless, why would a player use Blood Magic, other than for the evil lolz? How can we seriously appreciate the struggle of what a Mage might think or go through in making that decision if the struggle is never actually experienced? In lore, Templars can't block blood magic, due to its source not being the Fade. If we were to fight a large amount of Templars in this upcoming Mage/Templar conflict, would there not be practical reasons for blood magic in combat? If there is really a war going on, would having more power, allowing you to perhaps save innocent NPCs in combat, be with the price? 

A combat system that makes the most goody two-shoes player actually consider being a vilified blood Mage (and then having the game react to that choice) would be an amazing experience. 

Instead, with an "I Win" button, blood magic would be reserved for a playthrough where a player says "okay, I want to be an evil blood Mage who slaughters puppies and drinks the marrow from their bones." Which makes the entire concept into a caricature, not an actual struggle. [/quote]

...

I'm sorry, Fast Jimmy.

I just don't see how one relates to the other.

(warning, analogy time!)

I want there to be good acting in the movies I watch.  But if there are great digital effects in the film, then many people won't care about the acting.
To get good acting, we must remove all digital effects!

...

Did THAT make sense to you?  Cause that's how I'm reading your concern.

[/quote]
I'm sorry I wrote that in a way that would make such a bizarre analogy even pop in your head. 

The whole concept being presented is not that every single aspect of the game must agree with the world (I don't have that opinion and don't find examples to the contrary offensive to my sensibilities). But rather that it WAS really cool when this type of gameplay occurred. Saving

everyone wasn't even neccessarily GOOD in Redcliffe. Your character may have thought that the Elven spy was deserving of death, using their body as a meat shield. You may have wanted Oyd to die, so ownership of the bar would default to Bella. You could make these types of decisions in combat, if you so desired. Or your may have those decision made for you if the enemy overwhelms you. 

The point is that this isn't a decree from the Mount of Fast Jimmy that "All Gameplay and Story Must Corroborate One Another," but rather that such measures of a skip combat button present more challenges to these opportunities existing. Not saying that these solutions can't be addressed or fixed ever, but that they are rate enough as it is, so any additional complications make them even more likely to be rare. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

o Ventus wrote...

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?

The significant design changes between BG and BG2 were, I think, bad ones.

And that trend has continued.

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

I have played all of them.

Let's examine the changes from game to game.

BG2 was far more linear than BG, and offered less open exploration.

NWN maintained BG2's linearity, removed full-party control, and forced the PC to act as party spokesperson.

KotOR only partially restored full-party control, matched NWN's linearity almost exactly, retained the requirement that the PC do all the talking, and implemented BioWare's first list inventory.  It was also much shorter than the earlier games.

Jade Empire was extremely linear, again eliminated full-party control, forced facial expressions on the PC, and implemented action combat.

Mass Effect partially restored full party control, and added back the first open exploration since BG1 (so that was nice), but also removed the player's ability to decide what the PC said, and forced a specific voiced delivery on every line, retained JE's forced facial expressions, retained the requirement than the PC do all the talking, and retained KotOR's unfortunate list inventory.

ME2 matched ME's lack of party control, made the player's control of the PC's words and behaviour even worse through the addition of the interrupt system, broke its own lore to create an ammo mechanic, resorted to remarkably gamist (as opposed to simulationsist) level design to support its cover mechanic, eliminated stat-based accuracy, eliminated open exploration, and limited weapon types by classes (something ME hadn't done).  ME2 was a disaster.

DAO failed even to match ME for open exploration, retained the KotOR/ME list inventory, retained the forced facial expressions (though toned them down quite a bit), and retained the requirement that the PC do all the talking, but completely restored full party control for the first time since BG2, gave us back the ability to control what our characters said.  DAO was a genuine improvement over BioWare's previous few games, though still not up to BG's standards.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You could also use the modkit to make weapons and armor that make you nigh invincible. So let's make armor and weapons optional, as well. Since there is a way to abuse the game and make them void. 

Is that the argument you are making?

He's not making that argument at all.  He's not saying that, because he could do something with cheat codes, that the feature should be made available to everyone.  He's saying that, since his access to cheat codes didn't harm your ability to play without them, then his access to some other optional feature shouldn't harm your ability to play without them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The point is that this isn't a decree from the Mount of Fast Jimmy that "All Gameplay and Story Must Corroborate One Another," but rather that such measures of a skip combat button present more challenges to these opportunities existing. Not saying that these solutions can't be addressed or fixed ever, but that they are rate enough as it is, so any additional complications make them even more likely to be rare.

This is a good point.  Making combat stand apart from story sith something like a skip combat button would make it less likely that BioWare would intertwine the two.

And that's a nice feature to have.

Though, if we give BioWare the benefit for the doubt, we could just trust that they'll leave those opportunities in, while simply assigning a canon outcome to those players who choose the skip combat.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm not sure if you thought this through. Looting and equipping armor and weapons already IS optional. Players already have that choice within the game. And having the choice to not equip or pick up loot doesn't detract from people who enjoy gear progression and looting. 

Hell, even on insanity in Mass Effect, my armor sets are picked exclusively for aesthetics and not for stats, and I even like that combat. Being able to pick and choose how you interact with the game is one of the greatest strengths of video games, specifically RPGs. They are not universal experiences, they are nuanced and customized to the player's preferences, and that is a good thing. 

I'd say that's more of an indictment of the worthless nature of the ME inventory system, but that would be getting off-topic.

You could not, in DA:O, easily ignore armor and weapons, especially on be higher difficulties. If you tried to go against the Archdemon with the same iron short sword and leather tunic, you would likely get ground into the dust. The same could be said of skill points, attributes and specialities - if you didn't use/assign them at all, you would face a punishingly difficult road.

Note - you can chose armor and weapons for cosmetic reasons and be fine. And you could choose skills for roleplaying reasons and still get by. But to completely ignore them would be nearly impossible.

I can ignore your killallhostiles cheat completely. I can ignore the modkit allowing someone to create armor or buffs that make the game's combat a complete lack of concern. And the reason I can ignore them is that they are not part of the game. They are ancillary systems you can use to change/modify your experience.

The fact that you, as a PC player, can pull up the console screen and use a cheat does not result in the same impression, experience and overall flavor of a game that just skips combat at every encounter on a whim.

I can appreciate the fact that these features exist, but it is one thing for them to be possible and another for them to be integrated into the very nature of the game itself.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 juillet 2013 - 06:47 .

[MerinTB]

The splitting of hairs in this thread is giving me migraines.

[Fast Jimmy]

scyphozoa wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The fact that you, as a PC player, can pull up the console screen and use a cheat does not result in the same impression, experience and overall flavor of a game that just skips combat at every encounter on a whim.
 

I guess I don't really buy this. Sure, you can say it is subjective in how you feel about it, but for me, I am skipping all the combat, and watching all the cinematics.

All i do is enter the command once, and then I repeat "up, enter"  in the console, at my leisure. How is this so significantly different from simply pressing spacebar to skip through cinematics? Does bringing up a console and typing in a command really make them so different? To me, they are just buttons being pushed when the player chooses to push them. 

 

I'd say yes, because the PC player is the smallest gaming group. A minority compared to consoles, either collectively (all consoles vs. PC) or individually (PC vs. 360 or PS3). The fact that the smallest number of players can learn how to use a feature outside of the game instructions or documentation makes it nothing more than a secret cheat, for all intents and purposes.

If DA:O had the Contra code, I wouldn't have a problem with it either, despite the Contra code being incredibly easy to perform for any child of the 80's. * And, just like all cheats, devs do not have to consider or prepare for the consequences if using said cheats results in the game breaking. The request for a "Skip Combat button" is an endorsement of a cheat, with all of the implications and considerations of using said feature at any opportunity would involve.

It makes the complications larger, meanig the complexity of the system will be simpler. Plain and simple. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The point is that this isn't a decree from the Mount of Fast Jimmy that "All Gameplay and Story Must Corroborate One Another," but rather that such measures of a skip combat button present more challenges to these opportunities existing. Not saying that these solutions can't be addressed or fixed ever, but that they are rate enough as it is, so any additional complications make them even more likely to be rare.

This is a good point.  Making combat stand apart from story sith something like a skip combat button would make it less likely that BioWare would intertwine the two.

And that's a nice feature to have.

Though, if we give BioWare the benefit for the doubt, we could just trust that they'll leave those opportunities in, while simply assigning a canon outcome to those players who choose the skip combat.

When consumers will settle for sub-standard and there's money involved, I would not trust any company with the benefit of the doubt. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the danger here is that BioWare would insist on making every option viable for all players, which would then mean they would need to integrate it into the game as you describe, and thus eliminate from the skippable combat those story-choices we both enjoy.

BioWare's unwillingness to include optional features that won't work well for everyone is the problem.

[Wulfram]

There's a difference between making something a semi-hidden cheat option and a proper feature. Maybe not from a practical point of view, but still a pretty real one. I mean, I could win at Chess by teleporting my Queen

But I don't think that the power boost from blood magic is compelling anyway. You can always stick the game to easy mode or just reload a few more times or whatever. A skip combat option wouldn't change anything. Unless the proposal is to drastically ratchet up the difficulty on even the easiest level.

Of course, Blood magic could and should offer interesting non-combat uses too. That's where I'd see the temptation being

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

But I don't think that the power boost from blood magic is compelling anyway. You can always stick the game to easy mode or just reload a few more times or whatever. A skip combat option wouldn't change anything. Unless the proposal is to drastically ratchet up the difficulty on even the easiest level.

Well, the reason Blood Magic isn't nearly as powerful as it should be is that it is limited by gameplay mechanics instead of supported by them. 

To make things balanced, Blood Magic cannot be more powerful than the other Mage Specializations, like Spirit Healer or Force Mage. I say if they abaondoned the concept of balance for Blood Magic, in terms of usefulness in combat, the number of skills/abilities available (blood magic is attributed in lore to everything from mind control to healing/buffs to spell power amplification to demon summoning to straight out damage), but tie a story component to it that makes you pay a price for taking that path. Since Bioware isn't commuting to more instances of gameplay/story integration, however, Blood Magic will have to be suitably nerfed and confound the mechanics of the game. 

Of course, Blood magic could and should offer interesting non-combat uses too. That's where I'd see the temptation being

Non-combat skills are awesome on their own, in my book. Blood magic non-combat skills would be taking that to an entirely different level. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

I'm not sure what is a clearer example of gameplay and story being segregated by their nature than the fact that there exist different gameplay modes already. A world where both easy mode and nightmare match with the story would be nonsensical. Having a "friendly fire toggle" would be nonsensical. Qunari being immune to fire in one setting and otherwise affected normally would be nonsensical. If you wanted least possibility of such segregation it would probably be best for there to only be one difficulty mode and no such options (which is not really a radical concept, in the scheme of all games).

I think the point is that in this case there is nothing wrong with gameplay story segregation in this case, because that boils down to other people enjoying the game differently. IMO there should be one mode that is "least segregated" (eg D&D hardcore mode) and others to suit other playstyles.

As stated above, this is not a crusade to end Gameplay/Story segregation. It is not a crusade for realism. It is a request that Bioware continue with the (very cool) instances where they allowed gameplay to influence the story in the past which they have given up on in more recent games. Keeping a "Skip Combat Button" out of games won't ensure that such instances exist, but adding it will almost certainly ensure they will not. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 juillet 2013 - 07:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

Why would it? They would just have to choose one of the outcomes. For instance, skipping the Cauthrien fight would send you to Fort Drakon. Wow, that was easy, I should be designing this feature myself! /kidding

This wouldn't apply, as this wasn't an example of gameplay/story segregation, but rather a conversation option. 

You could choose to go peacefully with Cauthrien, or you could choose to fight her. There is no difference if you saved Cauthrien for last in combat, or had the chance of Anora being killed in the shuffle. It is a straight binary dialogue choice. 

As opposed to letting Owyn die in the battle at Redcliffe, where Bella becomes the owner, resulting in different dialogue, options and ending slides based not on a choice made in dialogue, but how well you protected (or didn't protect) him during combat.