809 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

To backtrack a little, the very option being discussed here (an auto-win combat button) would invalidate what some of you all are talking about, where losing a fight could result in different content.

If you could engage Ser Cauthrien in the fight and then press a button to win, why would you surrender in dialogue beforehand? You would have no fear of losing. Similarly, if you could win the fight with the pressing of a button, wouldn't most people press it if they began losing the fight?

This would result in almost no one winding up in Fort Drakon, which was one of the cooler levels in DA:O, IMO.

Similarly, how could the game have handled the tower at Ostagar without a cutscene? Because the PC players have the ability to use the killallhostiles console command, how would the scene move forward if it was used over and over again against endlessly increasing waves?

This is exactly what I'm talking about with the limitations to normalizing a cheat (which is what a "skip combat button" is). You would have far less scenarios where losing in combat would result in something other than a Load Screen, simply because very few players would see it. After all, if an "Auto-Win" button was implemented, who would go through the game and lose every fight, just on the off chance that the game somehow reacted to it? Other than purists, people would be tempted (especially on subsequent playthroughs) to skip combat if they were even in the slightest danger of losing.

Normalizing a feature like this causes a ripple effect on encounter and game design. It would be far better to include a Super, Super, Super Easy mode, which lets the player one-hit everything they come across (unless they are doomed to fail for plot reasons, where an enemy would be suitably powerful to strike them down). That way, everyone still operates within the parameters of the same game design, but those who seek to blaze through filler combat can without any real impediment.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 juillet 2013 - 01:13 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Normalizing a feature like this causes a ripple effect on encounter and game design. It would be far better to include a Super, Super, Super Easy mode, which lets the player one-hit everything they come across (unless they are doomed to fail for plot reasons, where an enemy would be suitably powerful to strike them down). That way, everyone still operates within the parameters of the same game design, but those who seek to blaze through filler combat can without any real impediment.

If the super super easy mode doesn't have a bzillion waves to pad out the length of the fight, then that's acceptable. I believe the original point of this thread was to get combat over with fast, not to skip it completely. Unfortunately 'make it easy' is not necessarily the same as 'make it fast'.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 22 juillet 2013 - 01:44 .

[xkg]

@Fast Jimmy Seriously now. Why do you care how other people play their game.
You guys keep talking "why would you". The more important question you should ask is "would I ?"

So would you constantly use this option if given the chance ?
If yes, then it only speaks about you power of will. Not about the game itself.

Stop "saving" people from themselves. Players are not monkeys, they can choose how to play their game to their likenings.

Modifié par xkg, 22 juillet 2013 - 01:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

xkg wrote...

@Fast Jimmy Seriously now. Why do you care how other people play their game.
You guys keep talking "why would you". The more important question you should ask is "would I ?"

So would you constantly use this option if given the chance ?
If yes, then it only speaks about you power of will. Not about the game itself.

Stop "saving" people from themselves. Players are not monkeys, they can choose how to play their game to their likenings.

 

This isn't about "saving" people from themselves. It is pure logistics.

Bioware has done some rather unique encounter designs in their games in the past. These were rare, but brilliant pieces of content that presented and reacted to lots of choice outside of the standard "choose by dialogue" options seen in Bioware games recently. 

Introducing other mechanics, like a way to skip combat as an example, place design obstacles to incorporating these types of elements in future games.

NOTE - I'm not saying if a skip combat button is not present, that these elements will make a return, nor am I saying that the inclusion of such a feature would be impossible to address the obstacles/questions... but the mere presence makes such design more difficult and they are rare enough as is, so it seems to be more of a "nail in the coffin" in those types of gameplay situation rather than a "I don't like how other people play" mentality. 

[MerinTB]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...
I believe that Bioware and other developers who develop story and character-driven games should make combat
encounters more meaningful and relevant to the story rather than using it as meaningless filler.

Most of their games, ME and forward, have done away with completely random encounters and replaced them with scripted "small, story-lite" encounters.

The effect is you cannot grind endlessly, after one playthrough you know where most everything is more or less, and events don't happen that BioWare didn't plan exactly for you to encounter.

This is both good and bad, though I tend to see it as more of a negative, overall.  Some areas where encounters continue to happen, and are randomly generated, tend to have a better overall effect than pre-scripted filler encounters.

That said...

I agree with you.  Almost all combat encounters should be story meaningful and relevant.  I hesitate to say ALL, because the occasional side-encounter that has NOTHING to do with the plot nor with your companions can be a lot of fun, if written and designed well.

But even random encounters can be story meaningful and relevant.  If you are moving through darkspawn infested areas, you should encounter darkspawn pretty much everytime you go through there, right?  (Unless your survival skill lets you skip random encounters - which is a good mechanic from, say, SoZ)

I'm ambivalent on whether BioWare should work at perfect their pre-scripted "filler" encounters or if they should reintroduce some areas of true random encounters.  I know the latter hasn't been their thing for quite a few games now, but...

I dunno.

I do agree with you, on principle.  Down in the muck of the mechanics during gameplay, however... I wonder.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To backtrack a little, the very option being discussed here (an auto-win combat button) would invalidate what some of you all are talking about, where losing a fight could result in different content.

The very option being discuss by many, including the OP, is NOT an auto-win button.

I'm going to repeat that in this post as I seem to be repeating it in many posts.

The thrust of this thread is not an auto-win button.

Many a different highlite.

What is being talked about in this thread is not an auto-win button.

What IS?

Ways to speed up combat.  Optional ways.  For those players who:

• have already beaten the game one or more times and want to see the story and story choices and are not keen on spending the majority of their gameplay on numerous fights
• are playing the game but have very limited time to play and want to see the story progress more than they want to tactically plan and/or button mash through another group of spiders
• regardless of which playthrough it is for them, they have just done three combats in a row and now the fourth one hitting has them wanting to turn off the game as they are tired of fighting
• any other reason the player may have for wanting to hurry past a given combat

Now I never even once listed "hates combat and wants to skip all of it" in there.  The OP, specifically, doesn't hate combat.  I don't hate combat.  Most of the people saying we should have a "faster combat" option are all saying they'd use it sparringly or not at all but it should be there.

Do we have that out of the way?

No, of course not, because someone will see the thread title and post their own "skipping combat means you don't like playing games, go read a book" response and the whole "auto-win" misunderstanding will be reborn.

----

The options being discussed most strongly, Fast Jimmy, are the following:

• a fast-forward of some kind: the OP used to set previous games to casual if they weren't in the mood for fights at the time of a given fight - but for DA2 that didn't work at getting past fights quicker because of waves: I think the idea here, now, is for like and RTS you can set the combat to run at faster speeds in a given combat - and this works well if you set your allies to tactics and let them run on those tactics most of the time.  this doesn't skip the combat at all - it still plays out
• an auto-resolve of some kind: this is largely my addition, what I'm focusing on, though I'm not the first nor only one to mention this; what this entails is when combat starts you can choose to let the computer run the whole combat super-fast and determine the results, utilizing your tactics set on your characters to playthrough the game as if you hadn't been controlling any characters; ideally this doesn't run the combat in real-time in front of you (though that would be a cool option - to allow sitting back and letting all the characters be run by tactics if you like) but just decides the outcome and shows the aftermath (like Wizard's Crown, an SSI cRPG, or any of the Total War games.) this ALSO doesn't skip the combat - it still plays out, and you can still lose
  
• an actual skip combat option: this is the target of most opponents, this "auto-win" button; most of us advocating faster combat aren't actually arguing for this, though most of us not against faster combat for those who want it are not against it existing - if players want to use it, let them, it doesn't affect how you play your game! - but what this would do is take a "default" or "cannon" result for a combat;  this one would actually skip any calculations for the combat, and the end results would be the prescripted ones that BioWare would find most likely or best for the story moving forward - for most this would be victory of a combat, for some it would end up with you in the Fort as a prisoner - why does it matter to some players if other players let the devs have a bit more control of the outcome of the game / story for them?

Okay?  What I'm actually focusing on (and I'm one of the participants in that "wouldn't it be cool if there were other outcomes to losing combats than reloading?" discussion) is the auto-resolve option.  That doesn't skip combat - that plays it out, super-fast and behind the scenes, and gives you the end results.  It doesn't auto-win, anymore than it did in Wizard's Crown or Total War, and if you lose you can get the lose results that aren't "reload."

Modifié par MerinTB, 22 juillet 2013 - 04:25 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I actually have read the majority of this thread and know what is being advocated. That being said, to me it is a matter of semantics. The problem of many is 1) combat becomes tedious and 2) the wave mechanic was (SEVERELY) abused in DA2. Bioware has stated that have realized this and such mindless wave mechanics will not happen in the future, something I believe them on. So that really only leaves the first portion of the complaint.

A fast forward button is something I don't have a problem with, but something I think is solved more easily by a super easy difficulty. It lets you one-hit-kill anything and makes it nearly impossible to die (if ME3'a narrative difficulty is anything to judge by). It does not introduce new mechanics or features to the scope of the experience but still solves the problem (combat is over quickly).

An auto-win or an auto-resolve button winds up presenting the same problems, albeit the auto-win button gives a unique set of obstacles because it assumes the player comes out unscathed.

An auto-resolve button seems to solve this, but ultimately it penalizes the players who would use it right when they need it most. For instance, in the DA mechanics world, if you fall in combat, you gain an injury. It is their balance between permadeath and auto-regen. With an auto-resolve, does the game assume a member of the party could have fallen? If so, does that impose an injury? If a player has a sub-optimal build, they may find combat a real chore so they use the auto-resolve button... but then they begin racking up injuries, due to the fact that the system would calculate the enemy as being stronger due to the build alone. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the number of injuries has stacked up so much that the player can't use the auto-resolve button any longer in a dungeon, because it always ends up with the computer causing the party to die. Then a weakened, injured party controlled by a player unfamiliar with the mechanics or the party's skills is now forced into combat to go forward. I didn't even mention if the auto-resolve would take into account inventory usage, such as potions, bombs, traps, etc., which may further leave a player up a creek without a paddle when the auto-resolve feature determines they can no longer succeed.

There are ways around this, but, again... you are talking about changing, tweaking and even creating new mechanics to support this feature when, in the end, it winds up having nearly the same outcome with a Super Easy difficulty. I just see this all being better served by having everything resolved in a combat fashion/set of mechanics, just with the option to make it so easy as to be nearly the same level of time consumption as pressing a fast forward button. Same end result, much less headaches and limitations.

[Magdalena11]

One of my favorite combats in DA2 is the opening of A Family Matter when Varric is doing the shooting gallery thing. Just about everyone is a one-shot kill and it's enormously satisfying. Of course then you have to go back and actually fight the combat but it's entertaining to just blow everyone up once.

[Realmzmaster]

@Fast Jimmy,

The auto resolve button can be used to run the tactics of the party which also means any healing or use of injury kits. The player need only set up the tactics or let the AI (run a predetermined script) do it. Therefore any injuries will be healed and not stack up. The program can run both the healing and combat with no problem. Given the fact that a large number of injury kits can be held in inventory it becomes even less of a problem. The auto resolve buttons in old games like Wizard's Crown and Eternal Dagger did just that. The mechanics are already available in Dragon Age to make it happen.
The autowin or autoresolve button is a choice for gamers to use or not use.

The super duper easy mode still means that gamers must run through the combat even if you take out the waves. It is not as fast as an autowin or autoresolve button but can still be put in as an option. Thereby accommodating more than one playstyle.

[Joy Divison]

MerinTB wrote...

The very option being discuss by many, including the OP, is NOT an auto-win button.

I'm going to repeat that in this post as I seem to be repeating it in many posts.

The thrust of this thread is not an auto-win button.

Many a different highlite.

What is being talked about in this thread is not an auto-win button.

What IS?

Ways to speed up combat.  Optional ways.  For those players who:

• have already beaten the game one or more times and want to see the story and story choices and are not keen on spending the majority of their gameplay on numerous fights
• are playing the game but have very limited time to play and want to see the story progress more than they want to tactically plan and/or button mash through another group of spiders
• regardless of which playthrough it is for them, they have just done three combats in a row and now the fourth one hitting has them wanting to turn off the game as they are tired of fighting
• any other reason the player may have for wanting to hurry past a given combat

Now I never even once listed "hates combat and wants to skip all of it" in there.  The OP, specifically, doesn't hate combat.  I don't hate combat.  Most of the people saying we should have a "faster combat" option are all saying they'd use it sparringly or not at all but it should be there.

Do we have that out of the way?

No, of course not, because someone will see the thread title and post their own "skipping combat means you don't like playing games, go read a book" response and the whole "auto-win" misunderstanding will be reborn.

----

The options being discussed most strongly, Fast Jimmy, are the following:

• a fast-forward of some kind: the OP used to set previous games to casual if they weren't in the mood for fights at the time of a given fight - but for DA2 that didn't work at getting past fights quicker because of waves: I think the idea here, now, is for like and RTS you can set the combat to run at faster speeds in a given combat - and this works well if you set your allies to tactics and let them run on those tactics most of the time.  this doesn't skip the combat at all - it still plays out
• an auto-resolve of some kind: this is largely my addition, what I'm focusing on, though I'm not the first nor only one to mention this; what this entails is when combat starts you can choose to let the computer run the whole combat super-fast and determine the results, utilizing your tactics set on your characters to playthrough the game as if you hadn't been controlling any characters; ideally this doesn't run the combat in real-time in front of you (though that would be a cool option - to allow sitting back and letting all the characters be run by tactics if you like) but just decides the outcome and shows the aftermath (like Wizard's Crown, an SSI cRPG, or any of the Total War games.) this ALSO doesn't skip the combat - it still plays out, and you can still lose
  
• an actual skip combat option: this is the target of most opponents, this "auto-win" button; most of us advocating faster combat aren't actually arguing for this, though most of us not against faster combat for those who want it are not against it existing - if players want to use it, let them, it doesn't affect how you play your game! - but what this would do is take a "default" or "cannon" result for a combat;  this one would actually skip any calculations for the combat, and the end results would be the prescripted ones that BioWare would find most likely or best for the story moving forward - for most this would be victory of a combat, for some it would end up with you in the Fort as a prisoner - why does it matter to some players if other players let the devs have a bit more control of the outcome of the game / story for them?

Okay?  What I'm actually focusing on (and I'm one of the participants in that "wouldn't it be cool if there were other outcomes to losing combats than reloading?" discussion) is the auto-resolve option.  That doesn't skip combat - that plays it out, super-fast and behind the scenes, and gives you the end results.  It doesn't auto-win, anymore than it did in Wizard's Crown or Total War, and if you lose you can get the lose results that aren't "reload."

This one of the most cogent posts I've seen on these boards in a long time.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 juillet 2013 - 06:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Fast Jimmy,

The auto resolve button can be used to run the tactics of the party which also means any healing or use of injury kits. The player need only set up the tactics or let the AI (run a predetermined script) do it. Therefore any injuries will be healed and not stack up. The program can run both the healing and combat with no problem. Given the fact that a large number of injury kits can be held in inventory it becomes even less of a problem. The auto resolve buttons in old games like Wizard's Crown and Eternal Dagger did just that. The mechanics are already available in Dragon Age to make it happen.
The autowin or autoresolve button is a choice for gamers to use or not use. 

The super duper easy mode still means that gamers must run through the combat even if you take out the waves. It is not as fast as an autowin or autoresolve button but can still be put in as an option. Thereby accommodating more than one playstyle.

But it still runs the very real risk of using all the resources of a player, thereby stacking up injuries and resulting in a player who would use the button the vast majority of the time at a point where they can no longer succeed by using the button, forcing them to deal with the combat in the normal way under the absolute worst circumstances (with no items, stacked injuries, no prior experience with dealing with their party in combat, etc.). Because we may assume that someone like Jennifer Hepler would not want to engage in any of the combat mechanics at all, so she may be using the Auto-level feature, resulting in a sub-optimal build. If such a player were to completely automate the combat aspect of the experience - leveling, fighting, tactics, the whole kit and kaboodle - they could easily get caught behind the 8-ball of using an auto-resolve button all the time. 

Unless, of course, using the button on lower difficulties simply results in the party coming through unscathed, by and large. In which case, it just become an Auto-Win button. Which, as I discussed, has its own headaches and problems. 

I'm not 100% against the idea, I just think it would result in more work and building functionality for something that can be easily solved with smarter encounter design and a Super Easy difficulty. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...
I believe that Bioware and other developers who develop story and character-driven games should make combat
encounters more meaningful and relevant to the story rather than using it as meaningless filler.

Most of their games, ME and forward, have done away with completely random encounters and replaced them with scripted "small, story-lite" encounters.

That still doesn't prevent those encounters from being meaningless filler.  Many a mission in ME2, for example, featured room after room of bad guys to be plowed through in linear order before reaching anything like a story decision.

[D1ck1e]

I wouldn't use it, but I'm not against it.

[MerinTB]

Joy Divison wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
something very long he didn't expect many people to bother reading, honestly

This one of the most cogent posts I've seen on these boards in a long time.

Thanks.  I'll take the praise and acknowledgement where I can get as, as I usually just get insults for trying to explain myself.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I actually have read the majority of this thread and know what is being advocated. That being said, to me it is a matter of semantics. The problem of many is 1) combat becomes tedious and 2) the wave mechanic was (SEVERELY) abused in DA2. Bioware has stated that have realized this and such mindless wave mechanics will not happen in the future, something I believe them on. So that really only leaves the first portion of the complaint.

I didn't mean to imply that YOU had just jumped in, my friend.  Massive apologies if it came across as such.

I meant OTHER PEOPLE who post as much saying "I'm not reading a 20+ page thread, I'm just going to state my opinion regardless of what is actually being discussed!"

On to your concerns, though...

many games (Dawn of War games do this, as well... granted, they are RTS's also but still) do this auto-resolve thing, and they seem to have no problem.

I think you are concerned about issues that are not part of adding an option to what already exists in DA:O and DA2.  The fact that you can remove the player from controlling one of the party members doesn't affect the game - you can let the computer run three of four as is.  You can also play the game with the character the player has control of not doing anything.  That is as is.

So why does removing the player from that last character, and letting the AI tactics run that last character, drastically change the rest of the game?  The only thing it changes is the combat and the player's participation.

Put aside your "what if" concerns and think hard -

pulling the player control from that last character and letting it run on tactics changes the rest of DA:O or DA2... exactly HOW?

Now, take it one step further...

make that battle happen in a few seconds of the computer calculating the results instead of running them, real time, on the screen, then showing you the end results.

All that changes is the player not having to spend the time watching the battle, and you would only really need new coding for an "auto-resolve" screen that pops up to say "calculating - you WON!" or "calculating - you LOST!", with some variety of listing what consumables were used up in the battle.

Again, for important story-battles, or battles with unique or unusual mechanics, the auto-resolve can be turned off.

Don't move beyond that.  If that was implement in DA:O or DA2, what about the game overall has really changed?  Especially for someone who would never use auto-resolve?

If your answer is "devs will not do X, Y or Z", I again point to Wizard's Crown, Total War, etc. - where the combat is clearly very much the focus of the game, and yet having auto-resolve didn't make them focus on it less.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...
I believe that Bioware and other developers who develop story and character-driven games should make combat
encounters more meaningful and relevant to the story rather than using it as meaningless filler.

Most of their games, ME and forward, have done away with completely random encounters and replaced them with scripted "small, story-lite" encounters.

That still doesn't prevent those encounters from being meaningless filler.  Many a mission in ME2, for example, featured room after room of bad guys to be plowed through in linear order before reaching anything like a story decision.

This is both good and bad, though I tend to see it as more of a
negative, overall.  Some areas where encounters continue to happen, and
are randomly generated, tend to have a better overall effect than
pre-scripted filler encounters.

That said...

I agree with you.  Almost all combat encounters should be story meaningful and relevant.

To expand on this - just because BioWare pre-scripted this "side" encounters in no way means they were actually any less meaningless or annoying than true random encounters.

I think, if you are doing filler combat, true random is probably better filler than pre-scripted, very little story relevancy encounters.

BUT - I'd rather there be almost no meaningless encounters.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think you are concerned about issues that are not part of adding an option to what already exists in DA:O and DA2. The fact that you can remove the player from controlling one of the party members doesn't affect the game - you can let the computer run three of four as is. You can also play the game with the character the player has control of not doing anything. That is as is.

So why does removing the player from that last character, and letting the AI tactics run that last character, drastically change the rest of the game? The only thing it changes is the combat and the player's participation.

I actuay have no problem with this at all. I originally thought this was just a console limitation - I would have just assumed PC players would be able to de-select the whole party. THAT would be easy and should be standard. I'm honestly puzzled that this isn't the case. However...

make that battle happen in a few seconds of the computer calculating the results instead of running them, real time, on the screen, then showing you the end results.

All that changes is the player not having to spend the time watching the battle, and you would only really need new coding for an "auto-resolve" screen that pops up to say "calculating - you WON!" or "calculating - you LOST!", with some variety of listing what consumables were used up in the battle.

Here's where my problem lies. Building such logic into the system seems, to me, like a lot of work. Mapping a fast forward system to a console controller without it seeming awkward or hidden deep within the controls is a real concern of mine, not to mention what functionality would be removed from the controller to make it accessible. I realize that's not a real concern for PC players, but that's still a very valid concern for the vast majority of the players who will be experiencing DAI.

In addition, it leads to the same gameplay/story segregation issues I discussed earlier. Yes, you can have the computer auto-calculate if things like random NPCs lived or died, but either such calculations will be static, resulting in players feeling like they are being penalized for using the skip feature (so because I use the skip button, I can't save the Princess AND my best friend?) or they will be randomized, which means in order to save the Princess and your friend, a player feels the need to reload constantly. Not to mention that it would then be difficult/problematic to include story-relevant events in combat, since the events themselves can be skipped. Unless, of course...

There's the idea that some important plot battles aren't skipable and now you are faced with a different set of dilemma - you now have some of the most important fights of the game being played by a group of players who have next to no experience with the rules and abilities of combat. So these fights may then have to be scaled back in difficulty, accounting for the fact that players may have never even really been involved in a fight to this point in the game, or they can be (appropriately) challenging, in which case people who dislike combat are going to have no experience with it except at its most difficult and frustrating. That's not a good end-user experience.

I realize that games in the past have offered these auto-resolve functions, but, by your own admition, those were RTS-type games, or at the very least, RPGs with a highly tactical-focus. The DA games, by comparison, aren't driven by resource management, army development, land control or any number of other mechanics players would be interested in aside from combat. It's pretty simple - combat and story. If players are skipping the combat, many of them aren't doing this so they can further refine their tactics or skill trees for better combat outcomes, which they want to simulate with an Auto-Resolve button (although I'm sure there are still a good amount of players who would use it for this purpose). The vast majority of players who would use this function want to do so to see the story. I see such a feature not only interfering with the ability to tell a story outside of dialogue alone, but also for making the experience the player does not want to experience (combat) more frustrating and unsatisfying when they are forced to actually engage in it rather than a setup where they can breeze through it with minimal difficulty (and, as stated before, with minimal extra development or design gymnastics).

[Fast Jimmy]

To expand on this - just because BioWare pre-scripted this "side" encounters in no way means they were actually any less meaningless or annoying than true random encounters.

I think, if you are doing filler combat, true random is probably better filler than pre-scripted, very little story relevancy encounters.

BUT - I'd rather there be almost no meaningless encounters.

I'd prefer more pre-scripted random encounters.

I.e., like the random encounter you can have on the DA:O world map that let you sneak up on the bandits planning a trap for you. Very pre-scripted, somewhat story relevant, but still much more engaging than walking into a random fight of mooks just for traveling through the World Map.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I realize that games in the past have offered these auto-resolve functions, but, by your own admition, those were RTS-type games, or at the very least, RPGs with a highly tactical-focus. The DA games, by comparison, aren't driven by resource management, army development, land control or any number of other mechanics players would be interested in aside from combat. It's pretty simple - combat and story. If players are skipping the combat, many of them aren't doing this so they can further refine their tactics or skill trees for better combat outcomes, which they want to simulate with an Auto-Resolve button (although I'm sure there are still a good amount of players who would use it for this purpose). The vast majority of players who would use this function want to do so to see the story. I see such a feature not only interfering with the ability to tell a story outside of dialogue alone, but also for making the experience the player does not want to experience (combat) more frustrating and unsatisfying when they are forced to actually engage in it rather than a setup where they can breeze through it with minimal difficulty (and, as stated before, with minimal extra development or design gymnastics).

I don't see why the italed is a problem. If a  player who picks auto-resolve (or whatever) misses those story elements, that's his problem; not Bio's and not yours. 

As for the rest of the sentence, I don't see why players should ever be forced to engage in serious combat if they don't want to be. Of course, this would depend on the specifics of the probolsed resolution system, which I'm still a bit vague about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juillet 2013 - 09:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't see why the italed is a problem. If a  player who picks auto-resolve (or whatever) misses those story elements, that's his problem; not Bio's and not yours. 

Bioware has, for logical reasons, made it their problem. They have come out and stated (as well as demonstrated with the design of their recent games) that they do not want to make content that will not be seen by a large portion of players. It is not a good investment of finite resources to make content or reactivity that will be seen by a small group of players. Their focus is on the single, first playthrough, not on repeat enjoyment and divergent content.

And a system that has an automated system of handling outcomes will, by very definition, result in a standardized, funneled set of results and outcomes.

So any further obstacle to make divergent/unique/out-of-the-box content will only make it that much MORE unlikely to see. Which means it then becomes my problem. Hence my response.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 juillet 2013 - 09:18 .

[Nefla]

What's wrong with a "no random encounters" equip like in jrpgs where you skip the trash mobs (and also the exp and rewards from those) and only fight bosses and special encounters? Those who find easy, drawn out, repetitive combat like DA2 horrible can skip it in favor of much fewer and much harder battles which are the only ones tied to the story (which is the reason we anti-wave, anti-long boring combat people play) and usually the only ones that give good rewards. Those that like waves and killing exploding meat bags can still fight for 75% of the game and end up with more loot and a higher level.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'm not sure obscure, late-game loot to avoid random encounters (as is often the case in JRPGs) is the best method to solve issues for people who fundamentally dislike slogging through the majority of combat encounters. Seems like putting a band-aid on a lost limb.

[Bullets McDeath]

If you want to skip the combat for the story, go to Youtube.

/thread.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to PLAY the game you are playing... maybe don't play it? I mean what is this I don't even

[Fast Jimmy]

outlaworacle wrote...

If you want to skip the combat for the story, go to Youtube.

/thread.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to PLAY the game you are playing... maybe don't play it? I mean what is this I don't even

Fhis isn't Bioshock Infinite or Uncharted, where you have a game that plays the story out the exact same. The sense that you can control conversation, actions and behavior is the enjoyment factor for many. There are many players who enjoy the choice and consequence aspect of the game for that's value alone. In fact, they like that aspect DESPITE the combat system in many cases. 

For those people, the "game" portion of the game isn't combat. It's the way they can experience the story with lots of reactive choices. And combat is simply a filler activity to get the game able to put "20-40 hours" on the back of the box. 

Which is a valid concern. It's just one I don't think would best be solved by the ability to skip combat at any given course by pressing a button. 

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

If you want to skip the combat for the story, go to Youtube.

/thread.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to PLAY the game you are playing... maybe don't play it? I mean what is this I don't even

For those people, the "game" portion of the game isn't combat. It's the way they can experience the story with lots of reactive choices. And combat is simply a filler activity to get the game able to put "20-40 hours" on the back of the box. 

Thank you.