Suggestion: make fights skippable

[mezera]

Hi,

I tried the demo and found the story telling and artwork nice, however the combat scenes seemed a bit tedious to me and I think I would like the game better without the role playing combat scene stuff.

I guess quite some work went into this fighting thing and I don't want to blame the developer for realizing it in a way that I simply don't like. My suggestion is to make them skippable, so any player can decide if he wants them or not. By coincidence I found the following on RPS today, which I find an interesting point of view: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/23/escape-escape-embracing-skippable-combat/

What do YOU think about it?

[Sea Author]

Hello Mezera,

This problem is quite high on our TODO list. There's a few different thing we are actually working on :

- quicker battles Next patch should improve this a lot by making all enemies play at the same time. Performances have been greatly improved too.

- "surrender" functionnality : you should see it in a hypothetical season 2. I don't think we'll make it for season 1.

- "adventure mode" functionnality : it COULD be done in season 1, after episode 6. It is not decided yet. This mode, if chosen at the character creation, would replace all battles by cutscenes.

Sincerely,
A Sea Otter

[archcorenth]

I like the battles, but I think the girl walks soooooooo slowly, both in battles and out of battles. Will she move more quickly with the new patch?

[Crosmando]

I think actual skippable battles would be a mistake, purely because it remove difficulty from the game.

[Motoki]

I think actual skippable battles would be a mistake, purely because it remove difficulty from the game.

I disagree. People play games for different reasons. Some might play for a challenge and others for a story. Now you might not play a shooter for a story but with a game like this with such a detailed story I think it's quite reasonable that someone would.

If skippable battles becomes too much of a temptation for some who want the challenge but lack willpower then I suppose the adventure mode, which would be chosen or not chosen at the beginning, might be a better solution.

[Cymmina]

I think actual skippable battles would be a mistake, purely because it remove difficulty from the game.

I'm going to have to agree with the "mistake" part. Poor pacing is not a good enough reason to remove encounters. Making encounters skippable cheapens the game and makes it not "Winter Voices" anymore. You're already able to lose a good number of encounters and progress the game anyway.

If you want a point and click adventure, maybe you should consider trying one of those instead of asking to transform a not-a-point-and-click-adventure into one.

[Crosmando]

I disagree. People play games for different reasons. Some might play for a challenge and others for a story. Now you might not play a shooter for a story but with a game like this with such a detailed story I think it's quite reasonable that someone would.

If skippable battles becomes too much of a temptation for some who want the challenge but lack willpower then I suppose the adventure mode, which would be chosen or not chosen at the beginning, might be a better solution.

But the game is an RPG with turn-based combat, allowing that essential part to simply be cut-out for people who do not have the attention span or whatnot to play the game as it's meant to be played, would be a travesty, as previous poster says cheapens the game.

Do you think a player deserves to be able to advance and get more of the story, and ultimately the conclusion, without the hard-work and effort of playing through every fight?

[cthulhu985]

If some people want to pay the full price for a game and then skip half of it, why shouldn't you let them?
Unless it makes the devs think they can pay less attention to battles 'cause everyone can skip them.

[Crosmando]

If some people want to pay the full price for a game and then skip half of it, why shouldn't you let them?
Because it's cheating, games are supposed to be about challenge, and getting more of the story is a reward to the player for endurance. It would make the game casual.

[cthulhu985]

Because it's cheating, games are supposed to be about challenge, and getting more of the story is a reward to the player for endurance. It would make the game casual.Sure, it is cheating, but it's a single-player game so the only people they cheat are themselves. So why should everyone play the game the same way? It's not a competition and it's not like someone forces you to cheat.
And it's not like cheating in this game isn't quite easy without any in-game options.

[Motoki]

Because it's cheating, games are supposed to be about challenge, and getting more of the story is a reward to the player for endurance. It would make the game casual.

It's cheating for some people. For others the battles are a chore to get through so they can get to the story parts. Neither is right. Yes the game is part RPG but it's not some simple hack and slash, it has a very rich, complex, emotional investing story.

I think it's fine to make an adventure mode optional. If the people who want a challenge have so little willpower as to not be able to keep themselves from skipping a battle then just make the player have to choose at the beginning or perhaps have some special achievements and/or items for those who do go through the battles.

The reality is this is a niche game to begin with but I think every opportunity should be made to be inclusive as is possible within reason. If you look at the achievements 8% of people who own the game completed the prologue, 4 % the first episode and less then 2% for episode 2 and beyond. Even taking into account many people buy games and don't get around to playing them, those are extremely low numbers.

I think this game is a diamond in the rough that many more people can enjoy but it its current state it's just the nichiest of niche games. One way I see to address that to a degree and bring in some more audience without a huge overhaul and/or remake is to allow the adventure mode in some form.

Now I realize some people may look down on adventure games but there's nothing wrong with them and people play games for all sorts of reasons. I could also argue that if people simply must have challenge without the opportunity to get around it there are many, many games for that as well. In fact many more than there are games with a story as rich and emotional investment as intense as this game.

[Crosmando]

It's cheating for some people. For others the battles are a chore to get through so they can get to the story parts. Neither is right. Yes the game is part RPG but it's not some simple hack and slash, it has a very rich, complex, emotional investing story.

I think it's fine to make an adventure mode optional. If the people who want a challenge have so little willpower as to not be able to keep themselves from skipping a battle then just make the player have to choose at the beginning or perhaps have some special achievements and/or items for those who do go through the battles.

The reality is this is a niche game to begin with but I think every opportunity should be made to be inclusive as is possible within reason. If you look at the achievements 8% of people who own the game completed the prologue, 4 % the first episode and less then 2% for episode 2 and beyond. Even taking into account many people buy games and don't get around to playing them, those are extremely low numbers.

I think this game is a diamond in the rough that many more people can enjoy but it its current state it's just the nichiest of niche games. One way I see to address that to a degree and bring in some more audience without a huge overhaul and/or remake is to allow the adventure mode in some form.

Now I realize some people may look down on adventure games but there's nothing wrong with them and people play games for all sorts of reasons. I could also argue that if people simply must have challenge without the opportunity to get around it there are many, many games for that as well. In fact many more than there are games with a story as rich and emotional investment as intense as this game.
To be perfectly honest, I can't count on both hands the number of RPG series in the past that have been ruined by the simple desire to be more "inclusive" and appeal to a more "broad" audience, it always results in the same thing: Dumbing down game mechanics for casual audiences. Niche is the appeal, if people don't want to play an RPG they won't. They aren't going to start playing a game just because the developer dumbs it down, they'll just go back to playing CoD or whatever it is casuals do.

If battles are a "chore" then why are they playing games?

Edit: Could you imagine if Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale or Planescape had skippable fights, even though all three games are story-driven RPG's?

[mezera]

Hi all,

I just noticed, that there is still a discussion going on here. Just to make clear my intentions and my POV:

I find the game nice, just as it is (was). The combat part was just way too slow for me to really enjoy it. Even the first encounter takes some time to finish (without any chance of ever losing it).

Yes, I would like the game better without these combat scenes, which distract me from the overall story and setting, but I would probably like it even more then that, if the combat scenes were realized in a more responsive way. Sea author already announced major speedups, so quite possibly I will have no urge to skip the combat, when the new patch is out.

Ultimately I think the game _would_ work very well without the combat, so why not try it, if it can be done easily? Btw: did you read the article on RPS? I found it quite interesting and good food for thought.

Sincerely
mezera


PS: I found those speculations about me being too unpatient or whatever to endure the combat scenes very amusing. Back in the days I finished Bards Tale I-III and many other RPGs, which took way more time then this. I also became Elite in the game of the same name and its successors, so noone needs to tell me about having patience when playing a game ;)

[Motoki]

I am not saying go back and fiddle with the game and ruin it, I am just saying allow those battles to be skippable in some way shape or form, even if it's just choose which way to play at the beginning and then you are stuck with your choice.

I agree with mezera that it would be best if the combat scenes were realized win a more responsive way, but I also know that this developer does not have a ton of resources to go back and totally remake everything and that it's something of a minor miracle that he was even able to get this game back going at all to finish the last two episodes.

I realize that 'dumbing down' is a hot button issue for players, particularly in the RPG genre since it has basically turned into wordy action games of late, but I think this is a different situation than some of those other games mentioned. Those were are least able to turn a profit. This game sold so poorly that it got cancelled and as I pointed out the achievments show that people just aren't playing it much past the beginning.

I think in a case like this yes the game does need to be more accessible if it is to at least break even financially. If it can be done in a way that doesn't directly mess with the game in its current state for those who like it and doesn't require a lot of development time or expense then I think that's right the thing to do.

As long as it's optional, I'm not seeing the problem. Almost every game has shortcuts, cheat modes, spoilers you can read online, guides that tell you every single thing to do and how to do it etc. It's up to the player to have their own restraint and play the game the way they want to play it.

Lastly, I will comment that I also have played and finished some RPG classics with very long drawn out battles, like Wizardry 8 so I'm not completely unable to handle such a thing but all things being equal I would prefer not to spend hours and hours to get to the story bits of this game which are the parts I really enjoy the most.

[Crosmando]

The heck you talking about, Wizardry 8 was a great game, and that is purely your opinion that the battles were "drawn out", it's entirely subjective and is a matter of the attention span of the player, for example in X-COM UFO Defense you could spend up to four hours or more on a single mission, to kill 50 aliens or less, these days what in a typical game the average player expects to be able to kill 10+ enemies in under a minute. Patience is what turn-based combat is about, and furthermore it shows that the player, the person role-playing, is dedicated, RPG's should require a level of commitment in terms of the time and effort required to play them. And they shouldn't be about instant gratification.

I don't personally believe a player deserves to get any story, or the sense of accomplishment that comes with progressing in and finishing a game, along with the achievement of building up the character you are role-playing as, without effort. I'm not the developer of this game but I know that making fights skippable, adventuring mode or whatever you want to call it, won't attract people who were never going to play a proper RPG like this in the first place. Even as a "adventure game" for "adventure mode" your argument doesn't stack up, for example do you remember the original Tomb Raider (1996)? That game was hard (and long) as hell, you could easily spend hours and hours in one tomb, figuring out how to solve a puzzle or perform an impossibly hard series of jumps to avoid falling to certain death. "Adventuring" isn't a free-ride even in adventure games, so you'd be better to call it cheat mode.

[wwwhhattt]

The idea that you have to fight through the levels to earn the story makes them sound more separate than I think they're supposed to be. What would make sense would be the ability to fail levels and carry on with the story anyway - all of the encounters take place in her dreams and imagination, so her life would go on anyway. Ideally then the game would be influenced by how well you did, but it's a bit late for that now.

[Crosmando]

The idea that you have to fight through the levels to earn the story makes them sound more separate than I think they're supposed to be. What would make sense would be the ability to fail levels and carry on with the story anyway - all of the encounters take place in her dreams and imagination, so her life would go on anyway. Ideally then the game would be influenced by how well you did, but it's a bit late for that now.

You want to reward failure? I like depth and length in the stories in games, but still WV is a game, not a book. Gosh what is with all this "Press X to Win" nonsense I see about? It's quite telling when you compare gamers born in the 80's, with gamers born in the 90's.

[mezera]

You want to reward failure? I like depth and length in the stories in games, but still WV is a game, not a book. Gosh what is with all this "Press X to Win" nonsense I see about? It's quite telling when you compare gamers born in the 80's, with gamers born in the 90's.

Sorry, you didn't get the point here. I started this threat to give the developers feedback about their game. As we all know, sales of WV were not so amazing; in fact the developers went broke before even releasing all episodes.

My intention was to give them hints, how more people could enjoy their game and they could generate more money from it. Reading through some discussions, the slow movement, especially in fights is one point that knocks many people off the game. As a complete rewrite of the fighting mechanics seems too expensive to me to be feasible, i'd say: better let people skip the fights then not buy the game at all. As was said before, the fights have no real impact on the story, so they are not necessary for the game at all.

If the possibility, that other people might skip over the fights, makes you enjoy them less, this is beyond me, sorry.

BTW: You are born in the 80s? That explains a lot, son ;-)

[Motoki]

Actually some of the achievements DO reward failure, but anyway...

Steam is starting to add some visual novels like Analogue: A Hate Story (http://store.steampowered.com/app/209370/?snr=1_7_suggest__13) not to mention many Adventure games which have no combat at all so I would say there is a market for such a thing.

[wwwhhattt]

You want to reward failure? I like depth and length in the stories in games, but still WV is a game, not a book. Gosh what is with all this "Press X to Win" nonsense I see about? It's quite telling when you compare gamers born in the 80's, with gamers born in the 90's.
Being a game doesn't have to mean "Jump through these hoops and we'll reward you with story!" The story is the game, not just something tacked on later to give the player more motivation. If you fail a challenge you should fail it and keep going with the consequences of your failure, and not be forced into abusing saves just so you can get the right ending.

Edit: If the challenge is important it should be possible to fail. Having players repeat it until they win ensures that victory is more or less inevitable, which renders the challenging part a tiny bit pointless (so making it skippable wouldn't do too much harm).
It might make sense to say that the challenge is part skill and part endurance test, depending on how good you are but I don't think that would fit into the this game too well. Having said that, none of the reasons I can think of for it are any good.