Speaking as a long-term gamer...

[seawasp]

... in reference to this, I can only say that I'm much more on her side.

The fact is that RPG combat is fun SOMETIMES, but not always, and the same is true of puzzles, stunts you have to pull off, etc. in order to move along in the plot. I like playing games. I like exploring RPG and action-adventure worlds. I am NOT thrilled with thousands of random encounters just to pump my character up, or as just time-fillers in between getting to plot points. Sure, I have some fun with them, but I would *love* a "go past" button that was **PART OF THE GAME** (rather than my having to search the Intarwebz for cheat codes, etc.). I can't, for instance, play through the Lara Croft Tomb Raider games for the simple reason that I'm just not GOOD enough to get all those moves right all the time. In any complex sequence I'm almost guaranteed to screw something up. So why shouldn't I be able to just push a button and say "get me past this obstacle", or "Okay, no more encounter fights until I get to my destination" or even "make me invincible until I get past here"?

Why not?

After all, it's not like I'm cheating against another person. It's not like I'll get some strange advantage over other players. (though I would really, REALLY like a "SUPERNOOB" button for playing in MMORPGs, so that if I were to play one I wouldn't have to worry about some loser schmuck with no life who likes killing other people's PCs for fun.). But for at-home RPG/adventure games? Why shouldn't I be able to just skip to the plot points if that's what I bought the game for (and it is). I don't BUY games for game mechanics. Those are by FAR the least interesting parts of a game -- in fact, they can be the negative parts of the game, if it's a pain in the ass for me to learn new mechanics. (It's nice that, for instance, Fallout, Oblivion, Skyrim etc. have very similar mechanics, so I don't have to change everything I do whenever I shift games).

The assholes (and I use the term advisedly) railing against this are just plain stupid. No one's going to make THEM use the "Easy Button".

Comments

I Support Jennifer Hepler

[tamahori]

I'd love a 'ultranoob' or 'skip hard stuff' function for those games. I suck at trying to play them, but often find the stories interesting.

I 'played though' all of the new Price of Persia games (Sands of Time and onwards) by sitting at a friend's shoulder (who does have these things like hand-eye coordination and reflexes that I've missed out on) and watching them play though it, so I could see the plot-line (and really pretty visuals).

On top of that, the virulence of the attacks targeted at her are downright disgusting. Why don't we see more woman involved in gaming? Because they get treated like this when they try. :(

Aaryn Flynn's reply may not have been entirely optimal from a PR P.O.V, but seeing the full text of the message he was replying too, I find it fully understandable.

I agree with your use of the term 'assholes' do describe the people railing against this.

-- Brett

[kgbooklog.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons I play RPGs is so I can pretend to be someone with good reflexes. This is one of the reasons it's been 20 years since I last spent money on a computer game. Luckily I can still find free turn-based RPGs thanks to sites like Jay is Games (timesink warning).

[melchar.livejournal.com]

I do not like twitch games. If I -have- to, I can manage to play twitch aspects of games, but most twitch reflexes are not ones I normally own. Sequences of button pushes? [shudder] Not likely.

So I'm voting 'yes' on the 'get past this fight/trap/etc' option. I don't mind combat per se, but agree that grinding for levels is tiresome. I'd also like an option for 'just figure I've got and killed another 50 of these things - give me the XP and treasure rolls' so I can go and explore the next section of a game.

I agree that I like games that have combat skills that are similar enough that I don't have to relearn button positions all over again. Standardized basic controls is a -good- idea.

[seawasp]

Well, you can effectively turn many of them INTO turn based games, simply by tapping the pause button and leisurely selecting your options. I've learned how to do that quite well, so I can do fine in Oblivion, Skyrim, Etc., by giving myself the time to make decisions.

[seawasp]

Indeed. A "Level Me Up" button would be good.

[eacole72.livejournal.com]

This would be the reason I had to give up on Disney Epic Mickey. I suck at certain kinds of video games. I literally can't run a character in a straight line, so any time I have to, I'm stuck, at least until I can get Ray to get me through a section. Being able to say "Computer, take over" and have it run through Mickey hopping from boat to boat and steering past the damn whirlpool would have made the game soooo much more interesting. Same thing with Tekken years ago. I suck at button-mashing.

This would be why I'm playing sports games on the XBox. I can swing an imaginary tennis racket and hit the imaginary ball most times. Gross motor skills for the win.

[chuk-g.livejournal.com]

I agree. I was playing the new Deus Ex, until I ran into a boss fight I can't seem to beat. My options right now seem to be "go back and build your character a different way", "get a save file from someone else" or if I remember, "ask your son to play through it for you".

Some games need it even more than others. I can't remember the last time I played a Final Fantasy but it was probably still in the single digits. Random and mostly pointless (except to get a little bit of experience or some small items) battles popping up everywhere.

The New Super Mario Bros. for Wii has a version of this -- you can get a computer character to do the level for you if you die on it enough times. (Or maybe I'm thinking of Super Mario Galaxy 2. It's some kind of Wii/Mario thing.)

[gary-jordan.livejournal.com]

I suck at Super Mario Brothers, never mind Halo or whatever the latest shoot-em-up is. There are probably dozens or even hundreds of--what did you call them? Turn-based games?--on the market, but I'll be totally honest and admit that the last ones I bought and played were Space Empires III, Bane of the Cosmic Forge, and Crusaders of the Dark Savant.

I also wrote savedgame editors far superior to any I ever saw for the Sir-Tech games. Still got 'em.

Jennifer Hepler has my support. What she wants is just common sense. The people attacking her sound like the same folks (generically speaking) who perpetuated flame wars on Usenet.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

In terms of the underlying game type debate: I'm in the middle. I like a little of both (story and action). That's also how I run my pen&paper games: I try to mix in a little of each element. But there are definitely times where I want to focus on "exploration of the game world" over "twitchy combat". Grand Theft Auto is a pretty prime example of both what I like and what I hate (you have to "unlock" game content in order to fully explore, and that means you have to follow the story missions, some of which are pure twitchy drek; but once you get past those two things, with or without the use of cheat codes, it's a WONDERFULLY detailed sandbox game world).

But, as for how they're expressing the "debate" ... absolutely childish. When it comes to games and commerce, "vote with your feet, and STFU". If they don't like the direction Bioware is going, don't buy Bioware games. Maybe give them a short polite reason why you've stopped buying ... and then STFU. The company has a right to go in whatever direction they want, as indicated by their hiring decisions. If they like Jennifer's contributions to their direction, then tough luck for you, you non-stock-holding customer. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or buy enough stock to make them change directions.

But if you're going to whine, yell, or attack people? all that shows is that you're not worth listening to.

(and, just in case it's not obvious, clearly the "you" is not seawasp, but the hypothetical "you" that has been attacking Jennifer)

[richardboustead.livejournal.com]

*Takes deep breath....*

I think steps are being made in the direction of customizing games to play styles. For example, (to use another Bioware game) Mass Effect 3 will have "Story Mode" where combat is minimized and it's all about the choices and dialogue and story. But it will also have RPG mode for a play experience like 1 and 2, as well as Action Mode, where a default path is chosen, story is reduced to cut-scenes and combat is emphasized.

I like that. I plan to play it as RPG mode, but on occasion I can see myself slipping into a Story mode play-through.

For "Insta-win" there are the beginnings of moves afoot as well. For example, I've been playing Kingdoms of Amalur recently. Class is done cleverly in that you can respec at any time to a completely different class. Too difficult as a mage? Change to a Fighter and wade in, sword swinging - all without having to start the game over from the beginning. Also, if I keep getting smacked down by the same enemy, the game asks if I want to lower the difficulty level. Combat is simple enough that even though it looks amazingly intricate and flowing, it's simple and easy and above all forgiving to execute.
I've also started seeing "skip battle" options (or "auto-resolve") on some other games, so long journeys may get interrupted by a random encounter, but then you click one button and get the tables of results.

While I support a "very easy" level where pillars don't break after the Prince or Lara lands on them, I don't support a "turn this finely crafted game into a animated cutscene for me" button. I think that playing a game (or being there as a friend plays) adds to the immersion of the game. In my experience there is a very fine line between "I am an ultra-powered badass warrior!" and "Slash Slash Slash, booooring...yawn.", and to keep it on the badass side, a little challenge is needed now and again.

As to the attacks in the article:

You will always get a small yet vocal section of people who hate any change that doesn't conform to their personal fantasy wishes. And like spoilt children who don't get the ultra-cool super-expensive toy that they wanted in a present, they can throw epic-scale hissy fits to express their anger. Hissy fits which are only amplified by the magical powers of the Internets to reach many people and be anonymous while doing so.


My two cents (and twenty dollars more) on the subject anyhow.

[seawasp]

"I don't support a "turn this finely crafted game into a animated cutscene for me" button."

Why?

Can you name one way in which this affects any player except the one making the choice (or, I suppose, a spectator, but then the spectator can push the "leave the room" button and either play the game later or go watch someone who doesn't do the cutscene")? Because I can't.

"Finely-crafted game" is possibly a somewhat objective phrase, but whether that "craft" matters is a matter of opinion. I don't find most of the big shooters finely-crafted because they're all about twitch, and the players I've encountered are all about twitch -- they seem constitutionally UNABLE to allow a N00b to get even five seconds of practice play in before they kill him, and everything else in sight. Most games, even the best, have some frustrating play design aspects, and a mechanic that works for one group may be anathema to another. Those who think playing Halo or other RTS games are the apex of gaming combat experience would HATE a turn-based combat system -- no matter how "finely crafted" -- with a passion.

So who's actually being hurt if I can just jump from plot choice to plot choice and watch the storyline unfold without beating things up (or minimally doing so, if I choose)? The programmers? No, they got paid, and surely there are many people USING their finely-crafted combat, etc., system. The company? No, we're assuming the guy playing (me) bought their game, so they've got their reward. Me? No, I'm getting to the meat of the entertainment the way I want to and having more fun than going through the same sequence sixteen times trying to get past That One Boss or the Demonic Spiders, or survive the Trap of Doom.

So I see absolutely no reason that a player shouldn't be able to choose ANY level of game operation -- from Ungodly Hard The Computer Is A Cheating Bastard down to The Computer is a Storyteller.

(In RPGs, I'd also like a lot more common sense capabilities, but that's a different question)

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

I know that when I was playing Dragon Age: Origins, I got about halfway through the game on "standard" difficulty, then hit some boss fight I couldn't beat. So I turned the difficulty down to "easy," then spent a while flipping back and forth between the difficulties, and finally just left it on easy for the rest of the game.

And, now that I think about it, I quit Zork 0 abruptly, waaaay back in the day, when it wanted me to solve the Towers of Hanoi twice. That is not the only game where I've wanted a button that says, "Yes, I know how to solve the Towers of Hanoi but it's REALLY F****** TEDIOUS so I would like to skip it please."

So I'm all in favor of in-game options for letting people concentrate on the parts of the game they like, and make easier or skip over entirely the parts of the game they don't. For those people who absolutely insist on knowing who has what bragging rights, virtually all game platforms support "achievements" or "trophies" these days, so the game can award them accordingly. You get the "Bad-Ass Warrior" award for playing through all the combat parts on standard difficulty, you get the "Master Storyteller" award for playing through all the story sections without skipping them, you get the "Fiendish Puzzlesolver" award for solving all the logic problems, and so on.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

I don't hate the woman. I don't agree with her point but I don't hate her. I tend to favor David Jaffe's take on the subject, that too much story ruins a perfectly good game. The ultimate point of a game is the gameplay. If you remove the gameplay then you don't have a game any more.

[seawasp]

I think I'm buying entertainment -- especially with an RPG rather than, say, a Street Fighteresque game -- and how I get that entertaiment isn't anyone's business but me. If I want to junk your gameplay and go straight to the storylines, I'm not hurting anyone.

Me, I really couldn't care less about the gameplay in many cases. Oh, there's some fun in doing SOME of it, but I would LOVE the option to not nose around some dungeon trying to find some particular plot token just so I could run out, bring it back ,and get ANOTHER plot token (lather, rinse, repeat three times) before the actual story moves on.

I am *certainly* against a sentiment I heard from several people in the business, that it's not plot and storyline they're interested in, but new gameplay. Why? The same basic mechanics are being used in Oblivion, Fallout, and Skyrim; if I was interested in gameplay, I'd only buy ONE of them. I'm interested in playing through the STORY.

Better yet, I'm interested in MAKING stories. But not in grinding levels, mostly. I want a game in which the story drastically depends on my decisions, which is still mostly only something for real RPGs, not computer or console games.

[seawasp]

Yep. I put it on the absolute easiest setting for every game I play, and I have rarely nudged out of that level except in beat-'em-ups (particularly ones where I had to beat'em'up to get extra characters).

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

I won't argue about entertainment per se, because that's what it is. On the other hand there is a difference in how the mediums deliver that entertainment. If I may draw an analogy, if watching a film is like watching the sun rise over a mountain then playing a game is like climbing that mountain so that you can watch the sun rise from the peak. It's the same sun, the same mountain, but the experience is different. The way that you might describe them is different: "I watched the sun rise over that mountain" vs. "I climbed that mountain to watch the sun rise."

It's not that I'm against stories or lots of text in games. Quite the contrary. I recently played all of the Ace Attorney games. They're wonderful games. They reminded me of the Zork trilogy and the other early Infocom games. What makes the Ace Attorney games and Infocom games work so well as games is that the stories are revealed through the gameplay. That brings up my original point. It would be trivially easy to remove all of the gameplay from the Ace Attorney games but then they wouldn't be games. They'd be novels. There's nothing wrong with novels. I've bought and read and enjoyed several of yours. But novels aren't games, and my expectations from the two are different.

This is where I favor Jaffe. BioWare don't make good games any more. BioWare, like Square and Kojima Productions and others, have been making movies in which the viewers need to occasionally push the correct sequence of buttons to advance the stories. This isn't innovation. It's bad game design fused with bad filmmaking. My own experiences with Dragon Age and Mass Effect are that it felt like I spent more time not playing either "game" than I did actually playing them. I'm not alone. Gamers who wanted their action RPG fix were saddled with interminable cut scenes. Gamers who wanted the social conversation simulator were continually interrupted by action and combat sequences. And viewers like yourself were clobbered with both.

So when someone from BioWare makes a statement that gamers construe as a big F-U then I can't say I'm at all surprised by their reactions.

[seawasp]

I think the issue for me here is that there seems to be an implied "and this is the only way a given game should be" in there. That is, if you object to us both buying New Game X, and you play through New Game X with all its fancy gameplay, and I hit "Tell me Game X's Story", you seem to imply that one of those is the wrong way.

I don't see why a game can't be a game, a game-with-story, a slightly interactive video-novel, or a full-on movie ALL AT ONCE for different people. That is, in fact, what I'm saying SHOULD be the case. I enjoyed playing Dragon Age (#1); in many ways it came close to my ideal for a current-art CRPG; multiple different characters I could start as, multiple little storylines for each character, and -- compared to many other games -- considerably less Grind Grind Grind required to get somewhere. But I don't see why such a game couldn't have levels of more gaming complexity, or just a set of plot choices with the rest being video -- and all in one package. If all the pieces are already THERE, what reason is there that the options SHOULDN'T exist?

Now, note that I said "for a current-art CRPG". My IDEAL game is full-immersive VR with the stories being developed based on my character -- which I design, not the game manufacturer -- as I explore the world. Now, that's not going to happen until we get real AI, but that's going to be the yardstick I measure all games by in the end. I don't expect any of them to come up very far on that yardstick for a long, long time.

But even in that fully-immersive VR, I'd want the ability to vary my immersion and my action capabilities. Perhaps I'd LIKE to spend a few days trudging through the wilderness with random encounters, but also maybe I want to say "And after several weeks of danger and hardship, my hero arrived at the gates of Minas Tirith..." and go from one side of the continent to the other. In some cases, maybe I'd like to actually swing what feels like a sword and take virtual impacts during a fight... and in others maybe I just want to SEE myself kicking their asses but not have to actually have any competence at fighting.

[richardboustead.livejournal.com]

Eh, I did have a massive reply post all ready to go, but it got eaten by an evil copy of Word.

In short: no, I can't name one reason that affects any other player. My point was that I think the act of playing the game adds to the immersion and enjoyment, so a button that reduces a game to a single cut-scene seems to me like it's removing elements of story as well.

I'm not against super-easy storytelling mode - in fact I think it's a great idea, especially for replaying games to see different story paths. Or when you can't get past that crumbling ledge - a "jump to next ledge" would be nice. Likewise Fast Travel is a great way to get from Story Point A to Story Point B without hours of tedious travel - but on occasion (especially in Skyrim) it's nice to take your time.

And my use of "Finely Crafted" was meant to be humorous, but I blame lack of sleep for not being clear enough. Still a bit muddled, so if I contradicted myself, nevermind.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

I did not mean to imply that you are wrong. Rather, the problem is the games themselves. BioWare in particular is trying to entertain everyone equally: the action gamers, the role-players and the story watchers. It doesn't work. Either the players must be willing to accept that some 2/3 of the "game" isn't what they want to play or you give players the option to chop out the 2/3 they don't want. Which I think is a foolish. Spending sixty dollars for twenty dollars' worth of entertainment is wasteful.

My yardstick for gaming value is a simple buck-an-hour rule: I expect to get an hour of fun for every dollar spent on the game. I've played every game that BioWare has published with the exception of ME2 and SW:TOR. The last BioWare game that delivered on the buck-an-hour rule for me is the original Knights of the Old Republic. Call me a fool. I keep hoping for more.

The issue of difficulty is related to this. All games are built on some kind of challenge-reward system: overcome the challenge and receive a reward. The problem with so many games is that designers scale the challenges to the best players and don't back off for the less-skilled and less-capable players. This leads to games in which the best players have the easiest time because they get the best rewards and the average players suffer. It leads to frustration and the desire -- sometimes the need -- to skip entire swaths of gameplay. Fix this. Implement adaptive difficulty. Make games fun for everyone to play. Problem mostly solved.

Or stop making games. Make films instead.

[seawasp]

We have the same rule; yet Dragon Age *easily* cleared that bar for me on the first play-through, let alone subsequent play-throughs. One of the reasons I've been leery of DAII is because they removed the multiple character starting option, which is one of the ways that the game delivers more value; multiple stories in one package.

Me, I'd like film AND game -- preferably multiples of both -- in one package.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

This precisely illuminates my point: Dragon Age didn't for me. While it did deliver on time, it failed to deliver on fun for the time. Like Mass Effect, it's a game that doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be so it tries to be all of them. Opinions about this clearly vary. Mine is that this type of game design is a train wreck: compelling to observe but not to experience.

[rasmusb.livejournal.com]

OMG! I so agree with you! It's sad -- I kinda wish I had a room mate who had the requesite skills so I could watch the game as it progressed. ;P

[rasmusb.livejournal.com]

LOL --- I love your range of options.
"from Ungodly Hard The Computer Is A Cheating Bastard ....."

[seawasp]

I can only give credit to TV Tropes for that particular classification...

[seawasp]

Then the thing is that there's different "game" audiences and yours apparently looks for something different than mine. If mine's a larger market segment, more games will be the way I like them.

For me, "more game" would be more choices, more character interactions, more world to play in. Mechanics of running and shooting and puzzle solving? Not the "game" I'm interested in. I'm coming into this from the RPG side, and that's what I'm interested in as a gamer.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

It's not that our desires are different. It's that sometimes I want to play an action game, sometimes I want to play a puzzle game, and sometimes I want to play an interactive game. The problem with BioWare's games is that I can't play the game I want to play when I want to play it. If I'm in the mood for an action game then the interactive conversations distract me from that. If I'm in the mood for an interactive narrative then the combat breaks the immersion. Doing everything like this is just bad game design.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.