No, for me it comes down to what an interesting decision in the context of a game is. Some games are conflicts of the body. A Mario game. I know what I want to do. I want to not fall in the hole and die. But mastering Nintendo's newest game controller and executing what I want is the game. Because it's a conflict of the body. (And so twitch elements are a big and important deal here.)
Some games are conflicts are the mind. Executing the moves is really easy. But deciding what to do is hard. The conflict is in your mind and not in your fingertips and your physical coordination.
And I have traditionally liked it in RPG's when their conflicts focus on the mind. Don't make the UI a barrier. Don't make the controls a barrier. Make them as easy as breathing. But make the choices interesting. That's my preferred approach to games in general. It's not the only good way to do things. It's just my favorite way. And it's why I like turn-based strategy like X-Com more than I like real-time strategy like Starcraft. I like to think about what to do and not worry so much about the human-controller interface side of things. You know, there's a micromanagement barrier to Starcraft that you have to overcome before you earn the right to think on the battlefield. So a lot of the gameplay in Starcarft is annoying even though some of it is cool. But all of X-Com is cool.
At any rate, I just haven't seen enough of the combat gameplay for DAI to know what to think. The video just makes me want to see more gameplay. What's a coordinated encounter like? What are the kinds of decisions we make? Are they primarily mental challenges or are they challenges of coordination with the controller being a limiting factor? Is it a mix?
And I wouldn't say all twitch elements are necessarily bad either. I want to knock structures down and cut bridges down at opportune times as much as the next guy. That's kind of twitchy. But it's a decision that involves some interesting mental connection. Hey if I combine this with that when they're standing there... boom. I predicted boom. Boom happened. Go me.
What's not cool (in a game for the mind) is when the gameplay is "Dodge this huge axe swing". Because that's not an interesting decision. You always want to do that. There's never a point where you go "I'd like to eat an axe today. Let's see how that plays out." Do I hit the nuker mage or the healer mage? Interesting. Do I kill these dudes guarding higher ground so that I can move my ranged up there and put my tank in the choke point to the higher ground or do I send my melee with their disruption abilities after the guys harassing my ranged instead. Interesting. What do I do with these guys given my party members and talent decisions? Interesting. Do I avoid death by axe: yes or no? Not interesting enough to count as a conflict of the mind. So when I see a dodge I think to myself "Just what kind of encounters are these going to be? Where are the decision points where I need to spend my attention?" Not saying a dodge can't be ever be an interesting decision. It depends on the context. But it can definitely be a boring decision that waters down what's really interesting.
Modifié par Giltspur, 19 août 2013 - 11:08 .
Retour en haut
Manage your party formation and move someone agile benhind the huge guy... Or with your mage focus on cast certain spell on your ennemy... Or surround the ennemy with your melee fighter while the mage makes crow control...
).... Like the teleport backstab of the thief.... Are just lazy solution....or weak if you prefear... But that's just me.... i love complex thing not simple thing..
