Combat and/or story?

[Frisk]

So, how important is combat to you, relative to the story itself?

[quechn1tlan]

The poll is stoopid imo.

If the game has a great story, interesting characters and locations, some mystery to it, I'm fine with placeholder combat.

 

If gameplay is immersive and challenging I can live with no story whatsoever.

 

But why the hell someone who could do both well shouldn't do it? Why go for "either...or"?

[Sacred_Path]

Games with **** combat and an interesting story get played once, max. Character building and combat is what makes me come back to a game. Therefore, I don't have major problems with generic settings, clichéd stories and shallow dialogue. It's better if those can be avoided, but no biggie.

 

I liked BG2, but I've only played through it twice and couldn't stay with it for 10 years like some people have. The only tactical depth consisted in what spells you chose to cast, that's not enough to keep me hooked. Lack of randomization also didn't help.

[Osvir]

I am under the general concept of less combat more story. There are some games (Like Odin Sphere) where I think Combat is just in the way after a while, that it is a tedious routine and I just jump over everything to get to the next story segment (resulting a way too weak character and I can't defeat that super difficult boss because he one-shots me, if I had leveled I might've been able to take 2 hits before going down on the 3rd... Odin Sphere is difficult~)

 

But I still want combat there, a challenge in a way. In Baldur's Gate I imagine my narration on Combat, why was it important to defeat that Ogre? Why did I hunt those bears down when I could've moved on? It's all me.

 

I think that P:E, if done like Baldur's Gate, it would benefit from situational enemies based on where you're at in the game. If you clean swipe an area no more enemies will return because I cleansed the entire area... the question I've got is... will that cause any consequences that could be narrated? Imagine I kill all the bears in one area, the woodsman and guardian of the forest might take strong offense to that and send a horde of monsters at me.

[teknoman2]

combat should be fair (without any atrificial bonuses (like imunities out of nowhere) for enemies, that are not part of actual character stats and skills, or items you can get if you kill him) but chalenging and completelly avoidable unless there is a reason (like combat vs animals).

if it is or not part of the story does not concern me, so long as it is part of it for a reason and does not undermine it

[PsychoBlonde]

Erm, what ASPECT of the combat are we talking about, here? Because I couldn't pick an answer due to that bit about it having to be "challenging".

 

For me, the combat needs to be *fun*. This is not the same thing as being "challenging"--getting your keys out of the toilet after someone flushed them is challenging. It is NOT fun.

 

I'm pretty good at making my own fun, but the game does need to help me by providing a lot of diverse and interesting options for me to fiddle around with AND an incentive to fiddle around with them. A good user interface is also essential.

 

But "challenging"? This is usually used as a synonym for "requiring fiddly exploitation of the game mechanics". It doesn't mean the game is more interesting, fun, or complex.

[Osvir]

I love challenges,

 

I agree that combat should be fun, likewise a "challenge" should be fun as well.

 

I put challenge/combat in the same boat because Combat is a Challenge. Beat this group of Ogre's or you are dead; challenge. Or you could run away high tailing it in the other direct

[Grand_Commander13]

Combat is something I appreciate for its ability to break the flow of getting a lot of dialogue thrown at me at once and moving between quest areas. I don't like it to be frequent, and I don't like it to be difficult—the sooner it's over the sooner I can get back to the good stuff.

[Tsuga C]

Option #3--necessary, but not the sole determining factor. For me it's only about 40% of my motivation to play as without a compelling storyline and fully developed NPCs, the game would become stale very quickly.

[rjshae]

It depends on the type of combat. Continuous, mundane battles with vanilla tactics can become boring. I prefer pitched battles that form a component of a story, whether it is the main quest or a side mission. But in the case of exploration, random battles are necessary to provide an element of risk.

[AGX-17]

Combat can become a tedious chore, the story typically cannot. With a good system, fighting is fun, but unless it's exceptionally good, you can easily get burnt out by an overly-long dungeon with excessive numbers of enemies and no respite or end in sight.

 

It would be difficult to make every battle tactically unique and interesting, but I guess that's the conundrum. Combat for combat's sake should not be mandatory (i.e. encounters that are just a swarm of mook enemies you've already dealt with in the thousands and there's nothing to be gained in terms of story, character development, or loot.)

 

 

But I do take issue with the poll's implication that there is a person for whom combat is necessary/mandatory to enjoy a story. How can such a person live life? Do you never read a book, watch a movie or TV show, or even listen to someone else tell a story? Are you bored out of your mind and hate all stories that don't involve you personally killing a bunch of things, (real or simulated,) be they people or animals or fantasy creatures? What a conundrum.

Edited November 11, 2012 by AGX-17

[ogrezilla]

 

But I do take issue with the poll's implication that there is a person for whom combat is necessary/mandatory to enjoy a story. How can such a person live life? Do you never read a book, watch a movie or TV show, or even listen to someone else tell a story? Are you bored out of your mind and hate all stories that don't involve you personally killing a bunch of things, (real or simulated,) be they people or animals or fantasy creatures? What a conundrum.

My assumption is anyone picking that option would go and do those things you mentioned -- like read a book -- if they wanted that kind of story. The video game is for the combat.

 

That said, I can't really vote here because I like good games either way. There are some great games with very minimal or no story, and there are some great games with very minimal or no combat.

[Hassat Hunter]

Definitely story. Combat can get really in the way if there's just too much of it... as most games do prove (KOTOR2, Dragon Age: Origins, endgame of PS:T and BG2)

[Ninjamestari]

Story comes first, without it I won't even touch the game. If the story is good, I'll play through the game at least once. Additional playthroughs after that requires the combat and character building to be interesting. That is the order of things.

[Ignatius]

Combat is a small portion of what makes an RPG. Game play is more quests, exploration, making choices, solving problems, and of course, if the need arises, killing a dragon. These things are what make an RPG, and it is these elements that are most important. The story only serves as a vehicle to take you to interesting places, but once you get there, the game play takes over and the designers have to make it work.

[Ieo]

Combat where appropriate. World combat for particularly dangerous and rare beasts, dungeon crawling. For actual questing, there should be a good mix of both with more options on the non-combat side (whether intimidation, intellectual trickery, etc.); objective-based xp will help with this.

 

Considering the basic levels of content division we can expect in PE so far--strong PS:T style narrative and the 15-level mega dungeon--I don't think we should have a problem with story-leaning quests but combat-heavy romping.

 

But the either/or comparison or whatever fails to take into account the mechanics design side, as others have mentioned: A ton of "hard" but essentially poorly implemented fights will end up breaking a game, so quantity has little to do with that type of enjoyment too. In a tactical CRPG of this nature, I wouldn't mind fewer fights but with smooth, excellent combat mechanics and requiring much higher tactical thinkery than DA:O, for example. Otherwise combat really would get in the way of the story.

[GhostofAnakin]

I don't really know which poll option best fits my view, but I see the story of a game as what keeps me involved, but the combat of the game as giving me a chance to see how well I built my character's stats and abilities. That's why while I'm more story-focused, I still want the combat to be fun. It's a key piece of the overall progression of my character.

[Karkarov]

Gameplay there may be a handful of people, especially on this forum, who won't care as long as the story is good. But if you actually want your game to be a financial success it needs to be fun to play, not just have a good story. Part of a good story in this type of setting is going to mean that somewhere in there you are probably going to have to fight "something" or work really really hard to avoid it.

 

Personally I think it is silly to go through all the effort of creating this world and it's mechanics if there will never be any combat. Logic dictates that 75% or more of the mechanics and rules governing this game are pretty much going to be only for combat. That is how it is in D&D, that is how it is in Vampire: The Masquerade, that's how it is in pretty much every RPG ruleset I have ever seen.

 

One thing that will piss me off is if I get this great story, this awesome build up, and then get to the end to face this penultimate foe who hopefully has been a thorn in my side throughout a large portion of the game.... only to be able to talk him down into killing himself or giving up. That is one cliche I don't want to see, and it is a cliche. Why should the mastermind of this whole plot, your main opposition, be such a weak willed punk that some half baked argument gets him to give up. It worked in ME1 because Saren was being controlled from day one, it has never worked for me any other time I have ever seen it used. Give me a villain or shall we say ... opponent who is actually worth fighting and at least has the strength of character to believe in what they are doing.

[HansKrSG]

One thing that will piss me off is if I get this great story, this awesome build up, and then get to the end to face this penultimate foe who hopefully has been a thorn in my side throughout a large portion of the game.... only to be able to talk him down into killing himself or giving up. That is one cliche I don't want to see, and it is a cliche. Why should the mastermind of this whole plot, your main opposition, be such a weak willed punk that some half baked argument gets him to give up. It worked in ME1 because Saren was being controlled from day one, it has never worked for me any other time I have ever seen it used. Give me a villain or shall we say ... opponent who is actually worth fighting and at least has the strength of character to believe in what they are doing.

 

How many times is this actually an option in a crpg? Among the IE games, we have one game where you can talk your way through the end, among the Might and Magic games we have none. Even in the Ultima series (in those where there is a main villain/opponent), you can't talk the enemy away. I am sure you have other examples where this is possible, but are they so common as to be a cliché? I don't believe so, but please give me some numbers we can work with here.

 

As to the Poll. Engaging combat is important, but sometimes if the story is great, combat can be less important. But if the lousy implementation of combat impedes a good story, someone should have gone back to the drawing board. The realtime nonpause clunky combat system in Lionheart, made me never finish it, although the story seemed very interresting.

Edited November 15, 2012 by HansKrSG

[Karkarov]

One thing that will piss me off is if I get this great story, this awesome build up, and then get to the end to face this penultimate foe who hopefully has been a thorn in my side throughout a large portion of the game.... only to be able to talk him down into killing himself or giving up. That is one cliche I don't want to see, and it is a cliche. Why should the mastermind of this whole plot, your main opposition, be such a weak willed punk that some half baked argument gets him to give up. It worked in ME1 because Saren was being controlled from day one, it has never worked for me any other time I have ever seen it used. Give me a villain or shall we say ... opponent who is actually worth fighting and at least has the strength of character to believe in what they are doing.

 

How many times is this actually an option in a crpg? Among the IE games, we have one game where you can talk your way through the end, among the Might and Magic games we have none. Even in the Ultima series (in those where there is a main villain/opponent), you can't talk the enemy away. I am sure you have other examples where this is possible, but are they so common as to be a cliché? I don't believe so, but please give me some numbers we can work with here.

http://tvtropes.org/...eMonsterToDeath

Yeah this has definitely never been done in a story before. That's why there are like 3 subcategories of this one trope. Hell even worse, if you look at the video game examples. Specifically in PS:T, the NWN Underdark Expansion, Fallout 1, Fallout NV, and Arcanum you can do this to the last boss (or bosses in NV case). If I count games where you can only do it to major enemies, though not the last boss themselves, I would basically be listing every game Obsidian has ever been involved in save maybe one or two.

 

I would say that makes it pretty common in Obsidian games. To be even more clear, they list eight games in their kickstarter pitch video. Half of them have a last boss you can talk to death.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Karkarov

[Tsuga C]

Half of them have a last boss you can talk to death.

 

If the party you assemble is heavy on skill and finesse, this is a very good thing. I remember using the "True Name" of Mephistopheles in Hordes of the Underdark. He had tremendously strong magic resistance and was immune to virtually everything but acid and raw, physical damage. Of the Core Four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) classes and their respective subtypes, your party of three (three!) adventurers needed to have at least one fighter in the mix and you were better off with two, or at least a fighter and a cleric. I remember going after him with Valen, Deekin, and my rogue/assassin and finally just using the "True Name" after having my head handed to me half a dozen times (I always use the Hard setting for a level battlefield).

 

Maybe with a party size of six having a "talking option" won't be strictly necessary, but I don't think that it'd hurt anyone's gaming experience to have one available--brains over brawn and all that. If you don't like it, don't use it.

[Karkarov]

Maybe with a party size of six having a "talking option" won't be strictly necessary, but I don't think that it'd hurt anyone's gaming experience to have one available--brains over brawn and all that. If you don't like it, don't use it.

It has nothing to do with necessity.

 

I want the primary enemy of the game to at the very least be just as charismatic as any character in my party. I want them to have a set of convictions and a motivation that they believe and follow no matter what anyone has to say about it. I want a Villain with an actual backbone who is worthy of the title "Villain". Meanwhile the Brain's over Brawn argument also doesn't apply. Why is it the Villain can't be as smart, or smarter, than you? Why is the idea of taking out a person who has hopefully caused a lot of misery for you and people in general considered to be "the dumb option". Hell a good Villain, one who is charismatic and intelligent, would actually be pretty much insulted by some idiot adventurer even thinking he could just "talk him down".

 

A wise man once said "A Hero is judged by his enemies." I would like a worthy enemy, that's all. I don't want a Transcendent One, I want a Jon Irenicus. Or even better, a Moriarty.

[Tsuga C]

No, no, no. By "brains over brawn" I simply meant that, if they're clever enough and have planned accordingly, the PC and party should have the option of out-thinking the villan or otherwise defeating the villan without having to stand toe-to-toe for a slugfest. In no way shape or form do I want a less than worthy adversary. That would be profoundly anti-climactic and Obsidian would catch an eyefull of hostility and abuse--deservedly so, I might add. I just don't want to be locked into a cage match where there's not much room for cleverness and it's all about inflicting raw damage faster than the villan is able to do so.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Hassat Hunter]

Why need bossfights anyway... are they really climactic?

 

As often I feel they are just the biggest of chores. And talking would be preferable to fighting.

 

Avoiding the entire conflict by not even *having* a final boss-fight/monster... that would be great

[Karkarov]

Why need bossfights anyway... are they really climactic?

 

As often I feel they are just the biggest of chores. And talking would be preferable to fighting.

 

Avoiding the entire conflict by not even *having* a final boss-fight/monster... that would be great

Yeah, because walking into House's penthouse, casually stepping past him without even saying hi, and pressing a few buttons on a computer console felt very climactic and satisfying.