809 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Which, of course, begs the question: is it possible that we're mentioning Origins and putting Origins characters in trailers because things might, perhaps be closer in some ways to Origins than DAII?

Few people seem to be interested in considering that possibility. which I find odd.

pedantic nitpick - that would be "leads to the question" or "brings up the question" as "begs the question" actually is a logical fallacy of proving something by evidence that in and of itself is in need of being proved....

Me being a egotistical jerk aside,

I think many DA:O fans who were disappointed in DA2 are hoping for what you are stating, and are perhaps holding back from reading too much of what you are saying into what has been revealed thus far, for their own sanity...
... or maybe that's just me doing that.

I think some people are getting it is going to be a blending.  I know that is your (BioWare's devs working on DA:I) stated intent, and I trust that to be an honst statement. 

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sister Goldring wrote...

So Mike, in case you're still reading, do you have any thoughts on the inclusion of an auto resolve feature for the DA franchise?

In general, I'm not really a fan of auto-resolving combats. In some (rare, admittedly, but I would like to do more) cases, we use combat as part of storytelling. Also, I see combat as part of the challenge of the game, where the rewards are both progression mechanics, and more story content.

That said, more scenarios where you can avoid combat is always good.

[AutumnWitch]

Personally,  I think they should make a game series that ditches most RPG elements entirely.  Do an adventure game, along the lines of Uncharted, but with their signature companion characters, dialog options, and story telling.  It would be the exact fit for their current cinematic drive.

That's a decent idea and would work cep a lot of folk who like the RPG element might not buy it. If memory serves Uncharted is third person shooter?  That being said I am sure the adventure gamers out there would come out of the woodwork if it was done as well as they could do it. Tho I personally only play RPG's and no matter what the reviews or chatter is I wouldn't buy it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lol Shameless, Mike. Shameless. This post alone with be an Examiner article before the weekend is over. 

I have this suspicion that days before we ship, I will sneeze and it will turn into an article with said outlet.

Bioware dev said to have fatal disease! Game is delayed until 2025!

Semi-confirmed rumor!

[Am1vf]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Am1_vf wrote...

We are forgetting the possibility that Inquisition could be its own thing, learning from both DAs as much as from any other game, if so might be best to say it.

For it to be it's own thing, it needs to leave its past in the background, not have it remain in the forefront. 
 (...)

My point exactly (but better explained). Still think characters and the such can still appear though.

[MerinTB]

AutumnWitch wrote...

Personally,  I think they should make a game series that ditches most RPG elements entirely.  Do an adventure game, along the lines of Uncharted, but with their signature companion characters, dialog options, and story telling.  It would be the exact fit for their current cinematic drive.

That's a decent idea and would work cep a lot of folk who like the RPG element might not buy it. If memory serves Uncharted is third person shooter?  That being said I am sure the adventure gamers out there would come out of the woodwork if it was done as well as they could do it. Tho I personally only play RPG's and no matter what the reviews or chatter is I wouldn't buy it.

I'd probably buy it, play it, and love it...

and I could stop being neurotic about "whether it is my character or not" when it is clearly a pre-set character in a clear not-RPG game.

I don't mean they should stop doing RPGs if they want... I just think they should really prioritize instead of experimenting with small moves each game (not even series, but game)...

and doing an adventure game with their signature style (again, presuming that my choosing companions and, to a lesser extent, quality storytelling, as their style) might help them see where they want to go in future games, plus it's a better outlet (IMO) for cinematic storytelling than games with player-created characters and many other RPG elements.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sister Goldring wrote...

So Mike, in case you're still reading, do you have any thoughts on the inclusion of an auto resolve feature for the DA franchise?

In general, I'm not really a fan of auto-resolving combats. In some (rare, admittedly, but I would like to do more) cases, we use combat as part of storytelling. Also, I see combat as part of the challenge of the game, where the rewards are both progression mechanics, and more story content.

That said, more scenarios where you can avoid combat is always good.

Ha! If you get some spare time, this thread about two or three pages back could have used this post. LOL 

[MerinTB]

Filament wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
answering the question as if it is not rhetorical but serious

It was certainly a serious question, and thank you for responding in kind. I would be open to a non-RPG from BioWare with companions and such. I wonder what the new IP is about...

I thought it was likely a serious question, but I didn't want past history to make it seem like I was attacking you as if I took your question as being snide or something.

So, clear air is good. 

[Am1vf]

AutumnWitch wrote...

Personally,  I think they should make a game series that ditches most RPG elements entirely.  Do an adventure game, along the lines of Uncharted, but with their signature companion characters, dialog options, and story telling.  It would be the exact fit for their current cinematic drive.

That's a decent idea and would work cep a lot of folk who like the RPG element might not buy it. If memory serves Uncharted is third person shooter?  That being said I am sure the adventure gamers out there would come out of the woodwork if it was done as well as they could do it. Tho I personally only play RPG's and no matter what the reviews or chatter is I wouldn't buy it.

Personally I like this idea ,even in the case the case they made a game I'm not interested in, it'd help focus better each genre. But keep in mind it would also potentially make a lot of people angry, look at SW:TOR.

But what doesn't make a lot of people angry anyway...

[The Hierophant]

Filament wrote...

Jimmy is now aroused.

lulz

[Sister Goldring]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

In general, I'm not really a fan of auto-resolving combats. In some (rare, admittedly, but I would like to do more) cases, we use combat as part of storytelling. Also, I see combat as part of the challenge of the game, where the rewards are both progression mechanics, and more story content.

That said, more scenarios where you can avoid combat is always good.

Thanks for the response  

I think that much of the desire for mechanisms to speed up combat encounters would dissipate if the player were given options to resolve situations without having to fight.  It makes combat a player choice and I think people are more likely to enjoy that which they feel they have decided to participate in.

Anyway, I'm going to take this opportunity to thank you for the many hours of enjoyment I've had playing the DA titles so far.  Good luck with DAI.  

[Nefla]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

Well that's extremely good to hear in my opinion. Waves made sense in certain parts (such as defending Redcliffe) but it was one of the worst things about DA2 and made the game very tedious.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
I think many DA:O fans who were disappointed in DA2 are hoping for what you are stating, and are perhaps holding back from reading too much of what you are saying into what has been revealed thus far, for their own sanity...
... or maybe that's just me doing that.

I think some people are getting it is going to be a blending.  I know that is your (BioWare's devs working on DA:I) stated intent, and I trust that to be an honst statement. 

The real issue is that not everyone agrees about what was good in DA:O. Take playable origins vs. ME1 style backgrounds. 

I think the origins were good in theory but poor in execution (especially with what ended up on the cutting room floor, e.g. the personal nemesis). Does that mean the lack of origins is bad? Maybe - it depends how much your choice of background features in parts of the game. Would more reactive backgrounds make for a better game? Maybe. 

[Star fury]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

Excellent news! I hope DA3 stays as close to Origins as possible.

[Star fury]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
In general, I'm not really a fan of auto-resolving combats. In some (rare, admittedly, but I would like to do more) cases, we use combat as part of storytelling. Also, I see combat as part of the challenge of the game, where the rewards are both progression mechanics, and more story content.

Good to hear too. 

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

That said, more scenarios where you can avoid combat is always good.

And doing it via diplomacy or stealth or other gameplay methods.

[Realmzmaster]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sister Goldring wrote...

So Mike, in case you're still reading, do you have any thoughts on the inclusion of an auto resolve feature for the DA franchise?

In general, I'm not really a fan of auto-resolving combats. In some (rare, admittedly, but I would like to do more) cases, we use combat as part of storytelling. Also, I see combat as part of the challenge of the game, where the rewards are both progression mechanics, and more story content.

That said, more scenarios where you can avoid combat is always good.

Mr. Laidlaw, you hit the problem on the head. Bioware games really have not used combat as a means of storytelling to any great extent. The autoresolve does not change any of the progression mechanics nor the story contnent. The autoresolve still requires the player to level up the party or suffer defeat.

If I saw the combat actually affecting the storytelling then I would leave the autoresolve button on the cutting floor, but that has not been the case. I would rather see multiple ways other than combat to solve a situation, but until that happens I will advocate for an autorelve button to speed combat and an autowin on lower levels for gamers who choose to use it. Whether that happens or not I leave to Mr. Laidlaw and the development team.

I am also looking for DA:I to lean more to DA2 than DAO in certain aspects.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 26 juillet 2013 - 04:42 .

[Realmzmaster]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I think many DA:O fans who were disappointed in DA2 are hoping for what you are stating, and are perhaps holding back from reading too much of what you are saying into what has been revealed thus far, for their own sanity...
... or maybe that's just me doing that.

I think some people are getting it is going to be a blending.  I know that is your (BioWare's devs working on DA:I) stated intent, and I trust that to be an honst statement. 

The real issue is that not everyone agrees about what was good in DA:O. Take playable origins vs. ME1 style backgrounds. 

I think the origins were good in theory but poor in execution (especially with what ended up on the cutting room floor, e.g. the personal nemesis). Does that mean the lack of origins is bad? Maybe - it depends how much your choice of background features in parts of the game. Would more reactive backgrounds make for a better game? Maybe. 

Here lies the point. I think that regenerating mana and health is a bad idea in both DAO and DA2. I prefer the system used in BG1 & 2 and NWN. After a hard combat the party had to find a safe haven to recuperate  or may end up being attacked in a weaken state. Other posters on the forum see this as tedium.

I find it ridiculous that the game has endless arrows and the party can carry a ton of items with no difficulty. There are quite a few things that I feel that both DAO and DA2 get wrong. 

I like the way mages approach combat in DA2 over DAO and like the skill trees in DA2. So how do you decide what gets kept from DAO/DA2 and what gets left out?

[Ieldra]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

That's good to hear

I recall waves being used occasionally in DAO, particularly in Stone Prisoner. It was annoying there as well, but it did make sense in most cases, and at least it wasn't ubiquitous and there were never fights with seven waves as the fight against the Winters in DA2 Act 1.

Anyway, I never found an auto-resolve button to be necessary in DAO, even though it's a much longer game than DA2, but I still find it desirable as a matter of principle, and it becomes more and more desirable the more combat moves away from slower and more tactical towards fast action. I have no particular interest in having my hand-eye coordination challenged by a game. If a game has good combat mechanics (example: ME3), then it does draw me in and I even feel motivated to play higher difficulties, but in the end that's not why I play RPGs.  

[Ieldra]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins.
 

Which, of course, begs the question: is it possible that we're mentioning Origins and putting Origins characters in trailers because things might, perhaps be closer in some ways to Origins than DAII?

Few people seem to be interested in considering that possibility. which I find odd.

Well, I am *very* interested in considering that possibility, but I admit it hadn't occurred to me, at least not with regard to combat and enemy encounters. Is there anything you can say about combat animations? Because that I find DA2's over-the-top to the point of parody is another aspect that detracts from having fun with the combat in DA2. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juillet 2013 - 08:32 .

[Ieldra]

As for using combat as a vehicle for storytelling, I recall exactly one instance of that in a DA game: the fight against Ser Cauthrien in Arl Howe's estate.

This also illustrates the difficulty of designing fights that way. if combat is to have storytelling relevance, there must be different story-related outcomes based on combat performance, such as winning vs. losing, specific allies falling, or killing certain enemies within a certain time frame, or something similar. Combat performance is affected by the difficulty setting though. I'd expect such encounters to be particularly hard to balance, and it may be less fun overall for those who dislike the combat, but IMO it's worth experimenting with more.

[LilyasAvalon]

Isn't this what difficulty levels are for? Though I can understand OP's feelings. Even on Easy in DAII, quite a few of those random, all the enemy jump in over a period of time fights are EXTREMELY annoying.

That being said, that's not really a video game anymore if you input a 'skip combat' option anymore. More a visual novel really.

[Ieldra]

LilyasAvalon wrote...
Isn't this what difficulty levels are for? Though I can understand OP's feelings. Even on Easy in DAII, quite a few of those random, all the enemy jump in over a period of time fights are EXTREMELY annoying.

(1) In DA2, combat is a tedious chore even in Easy mode.
(2) It's a matter of principle. Why should people who play mainly for the story not be allowed to get the parts they don't like over with fast? Why should I be forced to play through all the combat again if all I want in my nth replay is to see story options I haven't seen before?

That being said, that's not really a video game anymore if you input a 'skip combat' option anymore. More a visual novel really.

(1) There are plenty of videogames with very little or no combat. Some even feature epic conflicts. In the Total War games, you can focus on the strategic and diplomatic part without ever managing a battle on your own. Nobody complains that this option exists or makes managing your battles any less meaningful. Why shouldn't you be able to focus on the character interaction and story parts of an RPG the same way? Character interaction, after all, is the essence of roleplaying, combat is just one of several options for such interaction. 
(2) I find this assumption odd that all people who want an option to skip combat want to play a game with no combat at all. That's not what this is about. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juillet 2013 - 11:03 .

[MerinTB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...
Isn't this what difficulty levels are for? Though I can understand OP's feelings. Even on Easy in DAII, quite a few of those random, all the enemy jump in over a period of time fights are EXTREMELY annoying.

(1) In DA2, combat is a tedious chore even in Easy mode.
(2) It's a matter of principle. Why should people who play mainly for the story not be allowed to get the parts they don't like over with fast? Why should I be forced to play through all the combat again if all I want in my nth replay is to see story options I haven't seen before?

Yepyep.

Ieldra2 wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...
That being said, that's not really a video game anymore if you input a 'skip combat' option anymore. More a visual novel really.

(1) There are plenty of videogames with very little or no combat. Some even feature epic conflicts. In the Total War games, you can focus on the strategic and diplomatic part without ever managing a battle on your own. Nobody complains that this option exists or makes managing your battles any less meaningful. Why shouldn't you be able to focus on the character interaction and story parts of an RPG the same way? Character interaction, after all, is the essence of roleplaying, combat is just one of several options for such interaction. 
(2) I find this assumption odd that all people who want an option to skip combat want to play a game with no combat at all. That's not what this is about. 

1 - Best selling arcade game - Pac-Man.  Best "selling" free download game - Angry Birds.  Best selling paid download for a phone - Tetris.  Best selling PC game - Sims 2.  Best selling PSP game - Gran Turismo.  Best selling PS3 game - Gran Turismo 5.  Best selling PS2 game - GTA: San Andreas.  Best selling PS game - Gran Turismo.  Best selling Dreamcast game - Sonic Adventures.  Best selling Sega Saturn game - Virtua Fighter 2.  Best selling Sega Genesis game - Sonic the Hedgehog.  Best selling 3DS game - Super Mario 3D Land.  Best selling DS game - New SuperMario Bros.  Best selling GBA game - Pokemon. Best selling Game Boy game - Tetris. Best selling Wii-U game - Nintendo Land.  Best selling Wii game - Wii Sports.  Best selling Nintendo64 game - Super Mario 64.  Best selling SNES game - Super Mario World.  Best selling NES game - Super Mario Bros.  Best selling XBOX 360 game - Kinect Adventures.  Best selling XBOX game - Halo 2.  Best selling Intellivision game - Las Vegas Poker & Blackjack.  Best selling Colecovision game - Donkey Kong.  Best selling Atari 2600 game - Pac-Man.

Underlined games are actual games with fighting / combat in them.  The italicized games (mostly Mario) could be ARGUED that they have combat, but aren't combat games (Mario is a platformer, boxing is in Wii sports, etc.)

Ignoring Angry Birds for a second... if you look at numbers, franchises like The Sims, Mario Bros., Pac-Man and Tetris each individually SLAUGHTER almost all other major franchises combined.  Heck, even Gran Turismo as a franchise is levels above the closest "combat game" franchises of, say, Halo or GTA (which ISN'T a combat game, but has plenty of fighting in it.)

Your one combat franchise that could rise above most everything else?  Pokemon.  Latch onto that if you want.

Long set of research short - not having combat in a game doesn't make it not a game.  Or else the majority of "games" being sold really need to be reclassified - and when the majority doesn't include something, well, you are probably better off not using that "something" as a defining feature.

Killing things is just a lazy fall-back for game companies.

2 - That's a pre-conceived assumption going in that no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever disprove.  It's a "world-view" held onto by certain people.  You can't alter people's world-view with facts that run contrary to "how they know things are."

[Joy Divison]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for using combat as a vehicle for storytelling, I recall exactly one instance of that in a DA game: the fight against Ser Cauthrien in Arl Howe's estate.

It's been awhile since I played the game, but I think the human noble origin was one of the better instances in which the combat gave me a better presentation of what actually happened than a codex entry would have.