809 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

I think combat can add to the story, but I've only seen it do so once in an RPG when I cranked up the difficulty on ME3. A lot of combat is filler, added for no reason except to pad the story. Those should be skippable. Things like the Arishok fight shouldn't.

[PlasmaCheese]

There are PLENTY of RPGs where if you don't want to fight, you can skip it. It's called "RUN". In some games, there are even items you can use that insta-kill lower level enemies. Basically, everything but bosses. That could've handled thug-ridden Kirkwall very nicely.

I just hope the wave system disappears and we go back to set numbers of difficult enemies. ;_;

[Trikormadenadon]

As long as it is opional as the Op requests I would be perfectly fine with it. i love the combat in both DA:O and DA2 so i doubt DA:I will be any different, so I won't use this option, but if it is there it won't bother me. However, I can't help but think playing the game with skippable combat is like watching Die Hard without the action scenes...just seems like it would be missing something. And make it too short.

[North Light36]

xkg wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

If you don`t like combat and want to skip it, rpgs are not the games for you.

hahaha ... ok that was good.

If you think RPG == combat, then you have no clue.
How about RPG games with no combat at all like Harvest Moon etc, or one of the largest MMO RPGs - Second Life ?

And to all the others naysayers - this question has been already asked - so one more time:
How does something optional (read - something you don't have to use) affect your game ?

Um... Both those games are simulation games, much like the Sims. RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series or everyone's classic Dungeons and Dragons, are much better examples of RPGs and, like Dragon Age, mix combat with story.

If you're looking for pure story, I respectfully suggest a movie. Or better yet, a book. Both tend to be a great deal cheaper then a computer/console game, so you should find it easier to get your money's worth.

[xkg]

North Light36 wrote...

xkg wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

If you don`t like combat and want to skip it, rpgs are not the games for you.

hahaha ... ok that was good.

If you think RPG == combat, then you have no clue.
How about RPG games with no combat at all like Harvest Moon etc, or one of the largest MMO RPGs - Second Life ?

And to all the others naysayers - this question has been already asked - so one more time:
How does something optional (read - something you don't have to use) affect your game ?

Um... Both those games are simulation games, much like the Sims. RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series or everyone's classic Dungeons and Dragons, are much better examples of RPGs and, like Dragon Age, mix combat with story.

If you're looking for pure story, I respectfully suggest a movie. Or better yet, a book. Both tend to be a great deal cheaper then a computer/console game, so you should find it easier to get your money's worth.

Oh please ... please don't start "what is an RPG" debate.
These games are classified by major gaming sites as an RPG games so lets just stick with the more common classification and not your own.

[Brexan]

xkg wrote...
Oh please ... please don't start "what is an RPG" debate.
These games are classified by major gaming sites as an RPG games so lets just stick with the more common classification and not your own.

Then lets use your definination.

Role - Playing - Game

rather than

Role - Watching - Game

In these types of fantasy RPGs you pick up weapons or a spellbook, the characters role is to battle enemies and overcome the evils of the fantasy world. If that role doesn't appeal, there's not much that can comepensate. 

While I have no problem with an optional combat skipping features, as long as it doesn't affect my game play or take time away from adding other more mainstream features, I have to echo what others have said - playing a video game just to watch the custscenes really seems odd. Feels like that type of person is not the target market for this product and, well, they  can't feasably appeal to everyone.

Modifié par Brexan, 05 juillet 2013 - 03:50 .

[xkg]

Brexan wrote...

xkg wrote...
Oh please ... please don't start "what is an RPG" debate.
These games are classified by major gaming sites as an RPG games so lets just stick with the more common classification and not your own.

Then lets use your definination.

Role - Playing - Game

rather than

Role - Watching - Game

In these types of fantasy RPGs you pick up weapons or a spellbook, the characters role is to battle enemies and overcome the evils of the fantasy world. If that role doesn't appeal, there's not much that can comepensate. Just like if you don't like farming you wouldn't pick up a copy of Harvest Moon and be upset that you have to farm.

Yeah another fine example of RPG == combat.

Or you can PLAY THE ROLE of the farmer (Harvest Moon) - There is a story, there are dialogues, there is a character progression - yeah looks like an RPG to me, one without a combat.

Or you can make your character and interact with other people, join various social activities, build your house, progress your character - talking about the Second Life here - looks like an RPG too.

In these types of simulation RPGs you make your character and his role is to live a life. Simple as that.

And like I already said, those are offically classified as an RPG games so please don't try to redefine the genre.

Brexan wrote...

While I have no problem with an optional combat skipping features, as long as it doesn't affect my game play or take time away from adding other more mainstream features, I have to echo what others have said - playing a video game just to watch the custscenes really seems odd. It would be like McDonalds spending time creating a Hamburger for people who don't like Burgers

You mean playing point and click adventure (like the old Sierra, Lucasart etc) games has no sense ? Because there is no combat, only the story.

Modifié par xkg, 05 juillet 2013 - 04:14 .

[Ieldra]

Brexan wrote...
While I have no problem with an optional combat skipping features, as long as it doesn't affect my game play or take time away from adding other more mainstream features, I have to echo what others have said - playing a video game just to watch the custscenes really seems odd. Feels like that type of person is not the target market for this product and, well, they  can't feasably appeal to everyone.

Even those who normally wouldn't think of skipping combat might want to do so in a replay where they just want to see a few dialogue options they've never seen before.

Also, there are those who play mainly for the story, and they should have the option to skip filler combat which doesn't have anything to do with the story. Of course, it would be best if that didn't exist in the first place, but I guess then those who want to fight every step of the way would be annoyed.

In the end, this is all about finetuning your experience so that it's fun to play for you. Usually the difficulty settings and things like ME3's story/rpg/action mode are enough, but in games like DA2 they aren't.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2013 - 04:00 .

[Wulfram]

Clearing out the trash shouldn't take all that long, really. Not with all the AoEs you can throw out.

[BouncyFrag]

Put the game on the easiest setting. I usually play on harder difficulties but if I'm just wanting to try different plot choices, this quickens up the pace of the game nicely.

[philippe willaume]

to be fair there is usually a console command that does that/killallenemmy
so it can be published or even buttonised for those who wish to use it

the presence of the button/command does not remove anything to those like me that like combat. like god mode, I never used it in any game.

[philippe willaume]

Wulfram wrote...

Clearing out the trash shouldn't take all that long, really. Not with all the AoEs you can throw out.

in Da:2 thash mob waves  are the stamina refulling station for a warrior, so it is not in your best intererst to dispatch them quickly. that being said you end up pressing the same CC in the same order ad nauseam.
(hence the slightly tedious felling)
It is kind of the same as playing with two mages in DA:0 but longer

phil

[Ryzaki]

There really shouldn't be so much trash in the first place.

Makes me wonder how utterly stupid said mobs must be to keep attacking my PC after the other 50k people he/she's killed.

[Nefla]

If the combat in DA2 didn't suck balls and make up like 80% of the game then maybe I wouldn't want to skip it. I think combat that interests you adds a lot to a game (I like reflex based combat like Skyrim, FONV, Me2-3, etc...) and doesn't get old. To me DA2 combat is tedious, repetitive, not a challenge, even on the higher difficulties it's just a matter of keeping your party healed and whittling away the huge health pool of the enemies. Same thing every time with a new battle every 5 steps. Back when I played JRPGs I found the common enemies tiresome as well and got the moogle charm/ no encounters item or spell ASAP. The only combat I liked in those games were the bosses or special enemies because they had unique properties and tactics and they didn't scale to your level so they were very difficult after not grinding on mooks. I also like mechanics like sneaking or persuasion that let you avoid combat in a way that adds even more to the story.

To say something without combat isn't an rpg or that combat makes and rpg, well color me surprised that soul caliber, super smash brothers, CoD, etc are apparently RPGs...I play RPGs because I want to experience a great story and characters, I want to build a character, make choices, help shape the world and the outcomes of various situations, NOT because I want to run around and kill things for hours. If an rpg has good combat, I see it as a bonus but combat like in DA2 is an utter waste, a chore and if I could skip it all I would.

[Melca36]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Plaintiff:
If this topic comes up often, it's because it's a problem for many.

That's not what I meant.

You seem to be genuinely unaware, so let me warn you right now: prepare for this thread to turn into an orgy of frothing hatred aimed squarely at Jennifer Hepler.

I'm rather used to being the target of frothing fanatics ever since my sojourn on the ME3 story forum. I was unaware that Hepler said that when I made the topic, but I say kudos to her, and everyone who doesn't recognize this as a valid issue because they want to impose their gaming preferences on others can go to hell. How the hell does it impact others' gaming preferences if there is an option to skip combat encounters?

@all:
I repeat: Jennifer Hepler was right. Deal with it.

 

Some of us want to play an actual game and NOT just pay for a semi interactive content.  We dont want everything handed to us easily although I do agree the combat in DA2 was mostly ridiculous.

[Realmzmaster]

If you skip all the combat how does the party level up? Are the points from the encounter simply given to the player? Is all the loot simply handed over after skipping the encounter? What about a scene like with the Arishok? What happens if you do not have the tome nor Isabela? The only option is to fight. The same with the ending of DA2 or DAO. Do you skip the combat with the Archdemon or Meredith?

Maybe it would be better to have an auto combat or auto resolve button? The idea being that the program compares the strength of each party with the enemy and automatically resolves the combat.
The problem is that the party could lose the encounter and its game over. This system was used in an old SSI games called Wizard's Crown (circa 1985).

[Sylvius the Mad]

/killallhostiles

[Blackrising]

It depends on the combat.
DA combat could do with a skip-through button as far as I'm concerned, or at least a difficulty level that lets you fly through the whole thing. (And no, casual is not fast enough in this case.)
It's simply not interesting enough to keep me on my toes for more than one playthrough. In the end, it all amounts to button smashing. (In DA2 AND DA:O, because I'm honestly not a fan of spending hours on tactics.)
The combat in ME1 still keeps my interest on every playthrough and it's the only game that I was tempted to play on hard and nightmare, simply to test my skill, so I didn't think a skip option was needed here.

Obviously this is all just my personal opinion and I'm sure some of you think differently.

[Bizantura]

I never got the feeling DA2 was written with adults in mind but for 16 - 17 year olds (if that). Thats why I wanted to skip combat and story of DA2. Hope DAI will be written for more mature people as DAO was so combat and story make sense like Nefla above states : I play RPGs because.....

[kumquats]

I vote yes.
I did play ME3 on Insanity, because I like a challange....[lol]
And I used the narrator mode to record some very rare dialogues.

I hope they offer something like that in DA:I aswell, where you can just skip a lot of combat, to test out all the different dialogue options.

I mean I played Kotor at least 12 times, to really see everything that game has to offer, but I simply don't have the time for that anymore, so a narrator mode, would be awesome.

[Star fury]

Breaking news - biower should really make better combat, so people wouldn't want to skip it. And yes, DA2 "press button and AWESOME happens" combat system was crap.

I started playing on nightmare, after spending 30 minutes killing first ogre, I had to change difficulty. I didn't do save/load, it's just they DA2 mobs had tons of HP and huge damage. So it was tedious and boring process on high difficulties.

[Il Divo]

I'm cool with a skip combat button.

But I'm sure some would use that as a rallying point to argue that Bioware doesn't have any confidence in their gameplay, otherwise no one would want to skip the combat in the first place.

[Degs29]

Isn't there a problem when fans want to skip the actual gameplay of a video game?

Not that I agree. I liked the combat in both DA games. DA:O for focusing more on tactics and less on direct input, and DA2 for the wave combat (which I enjoyed).

[Jorji Costava]

I know this will never happen, but if it were up to me, I'd say the games should just have far fewer, but more meaningful encounters. To begin with, killing literally thousands of people/monsters/demons would realistically have some psychological effect on a character and on people's perception of him or her, but such effects are never represented in games. I think gameplay and story should be integrated as much as possible, and that's harder to do when you're constantly killing all the time.

Secondly, if we're going with the 'cinematic' analogy, a movie can get boring when it's bogged down by action for action's sake. Remember the Red Letter Media reviews of the prequels? Mr. Plinkett points out that whenever you see lightsaber fights in the original trilogy, there's history between the characters fighting each other and emotional takes that make us invest in each awkward swing of those laser swords. Contrast this with the fight with Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones, where the characters are fighting someone who may or may not be about to do something evil, we don't really know. They're fighting because it looks cool, but in the end, it's pretty dull. Similarly with Dragon Age, maybe someone like Jennifer Hepler could get invested in the combat sequences if there were a psychological or emotional subtext to them; fighting spiders all the time can get dull, but fighting the dude who killed your father or something could be much more exciting. It's hard to make encounter after encounter with stakes like this, though, so a "less is more" approach could be very useful.