In Defense of Hepler Mode

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Couple of quick notes here:

1. Why would you want to skip cutscenes?
So if you fail a level and have to repeat it multiple times, you really want to rewatch the cutscene that precedes it every single time? Because for me, after having to see it for the third time in a row, it's kinda lost its dramatic impact. I'd be okay with a cutscene being unskippable the first time it plays, but skippable if it has to be repeated after that.

2. Gameplay can not be skippable.
If gameplay is this essential element of a game that must be present and must not be shoved aside for any reason whatsoever, then so are cutscenes, and sound, and level design, and graphics, and story. Every single solitary one of these elements are essential for making not just a proper game but a game period. If even one of these elements is removed or can be ignored, then it is not a game by definition.

3. You're playing it wrong.
One of my favorite ways to play sports games (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.) is to set up a cpu vs.cpu match. In fact, other than using the single-player modes to unlock the secret content in WWE '12 (I refuse to pay money to download those secrets), one of the things that I like to do is use created wrestlers and watch them in computer controlled matches in the Universe Career Mode. Are you telling me that I'm wrong for playing it that way?

4. If you want people to like your gameplay, don't make it suck.
That is the laziest solution to a problem I have ever heard. "If you want people to play your game, then make it good." Okay, brilliant deduction, Sherlock. Just one more little part that needs to be answered. HOW DO WE DO THAT? If you can't answer that question, then keep your earth shattering revelations to yourself.

Having "Helper-mode" might actually influence more people to jump on the gaming wagon. Is it a good idea? Yeah, I don't know about that yet.

As for Helper herself, I felt bad for her. *shrugs*

Shamanic Rhythm:
I just don't understand why you'd bother defending anyone from that little Reddit hate circle. Dragon Age II was a piece of crap, but if you or anyone else got so invested in it that you can't help but burst with misogynistic rage when a female writer expresses her ineptness at playing games, I think it says more about you than it does about them.

I'm not defending anyone, it was rather shitty what they did and especially in which tone, but reactionary putting it off as some sort of "misogynistic/homophobic outburst" or whatever gaming media tried to "paint" it as won't help anyone but EAs PR.

She isn't the only female in the industry and it's not like everyone else got the same treatment. It's easy to put it off as "stupid gamers", it's harder to try to analyze and find reason as to why it actually happened and maybe try to prevent it the next time.

And that's not going to happen unless either the press start being more critical and asking questions, similar to what Forbes is doing right now or if that certain part of the industry changes its ways. Hell, people are literally throwing millions of dollars at this Kickstarter thing mainly because they are frustrated of the state the industry is in and some critical commentary in regards to that and the obvious business practices instead of the PR puff pieces and glowing reviews every now and then as well as some basic respect for your audience and their thinking ability would go a long way.

BreakfastMan:
I am sorry, but this statement is just absurd. So, if one includes an optional multiplayer mode, one is a bad game designer? If someone includes sidequests in an RPG, they failed as a game designer? What, should all modern games be entirely linear, so as to ensure we cannot skip anything? Can you see the problem with that statement?

EDIT: And furthermore, if that is the case, every single game designer since the dawn of games has failed abhorrently as a game designer, since every single game I can think of has had at least 1 part someone, someone wanted to skip or could skip.

There's a difference between not playing parts of the game or skipping game content because it is open world and wanting to entirely bypass essential game mechanics like combat/inventory management or whatever altogether because they frustrate/bore you. I'm talking about the latter.

One of my favorite Nintendo DS games is 'Hotel Dusk', a visual novel that nevertheless offers gameplay without requiring fighting. I am a bit disappointed by those who *seem* to equate gameplay to fighting, as there are so many genres that don't have fighting, and so many games where the fighting is so poorly implemented that I wish I could skip it so I could play the story.

Now, having sunk several (tens of) thousands of hours into gaming over the years, I still don't consider myself a 'hardcore' gamer. However, I have been gaming for several decades (since I was 3 and was learning how to read with Zork and Rogue/Larn), and I have always said that a good game means I had fun. Some games I've played several dozen times through (Betrayal at Krondor) and others I never quite finished (The Witcher) - does that mean Betrayal at Kronder is better? That it is better 'designed' because it encouraged me to play through to the end successfully? Nah. But, like someone else said, I would have appreciated the ability to skip some of the combat in the Witcher so I could finish the story. (Mind, I've finished both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, so I don't think it is a lack of ability to play the game, necessarily.)

Also, remember that no such thing as a perfect game exists. Every single game that is released has errors, shortcomings, decisions made during developments, etc, that led to an experience that does not match up completely to the design documents. Saying that 'not playing all the game designers made' means it's a poorly designed game is a statement that doesn't quite line up with reality. I love 'Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood,' for example, but have never played the multiplayer. Does that mean the game is poorly designed? Or that I chose to enjoy what I chose to enjoy?

*shrug*

Shamus Young:
Shamus offers support for a "Hepler Mode" in games.

Yes! Thank you!

I said much the same when the forum exploded about this weeks ago, and I was mostly yelled at or ignored. When people did speak vaguely rationally, it was the "games are about gameplay" argument.

... or about taking her comment about being a working mother out of context. There were a lot of people who really wanted to make her comment be about women staying home and raising kids - which is absurd since she is a working mother herself, and uses herself AS that example.

Anyway, thank you for saying this. It might not quell the tide, but at least now, when people start saying stupid stuff about her, I can link them to your article.

You know, when I first heard about Hepler's comments, I was angry. But then I remembered it was Bioware. And I remember than when playing through Mass Effect my most common thought was, 'Why am I shooting at stuff in this game about flying through space to talk to aliens?'

I was legitimately disappointed when I noticed that the 'Story' mode in ME3 only made the combat hyper-easy. I don't want the combat to be hyper-easy because combat in ME is not frustrating, it's just boring, and making it hyper-easy only makes it a different kind of boring. I just want it to be replaced by a box that says, 'And then Shepard went down there and punched a bunch of aliens in their face-analogues.'

Maybe I should make some cupcakes and demand Bioware add that option. Or maybe I should do something constructive and use that idea to create a combat-less, dialogue-heavy space exploration game. Or maybe I should learn to cook cupcakes. The last two seem to be more productive.

FredTheUndead:
I read the article, I merely disagree with it. His example of combat being a chore in the Witcher 2 could be improved merely by having Witcher 2 combat not be shit in the first place.

If you did, then you didn't put any real thought into it.

And yeah no Hepler is awful. I don't dislike her because she's a woman or anything (that'd be an odd place to come from for a variety of reasons), I hate her because she's a bad writer who clearly dislikes games, and who when originally called out for her bad writing basically used "you just hate it because I'm a woman" as a defense.

The way you expressed yourself was still dickish and seemed to justify the horrible treatment she received. Your vitriolic rhetoric makes it seem as if you approve of that sort of abuse and nonsense all in the name of your impotent, insignificant rage. So yeah, I stand by my comments. Don't like it? Prove me wrong, sparky. Act like an adult.

Zachary Amaranth:
LA noire's wretched boring combat n chases are skippable, becuz its just shite. i honestly dont get why it was put in in the first place, or why it wasnt improved.

Even if the driving sections were way better, I'm not a big fan of driving games. Even if it was the greatest driving simulator in the world, I'd still be happy to have the option to skip it. Holy shit, it's almost as if people have complex tastes that can't be filed neatly into a stereotype. What a crazy notion!

Dexter111:
There's a difference between not playing parts of the game or skipping game content because it is open world and wanting to entirely bypass essential game mechanics like combat/inventory management or whatever altogether because they frustrate/bore you. I'm talking about the latter.

What about situations like I said above? You know, how driving games aren't really my thing, so they option to skip the vehicle sections is appreciated. Am I being unreasonable by saying that would be a nice option to have?

DrVornoff:

Zachary Amaranth:
LA noire's wretched boring combat n chases are skippable, becuz its just shite. i honestly dont get why it was put in in the first place, or why it wasnt improved.

Even if the driving sections were way better, I'm not a big fan of driving games. Even if it was the greatest driving simulator in the world, I'd still be happy to have the option to skip it. Holy shit, it's almost as if people have complex tastes that can't be filed neatly into a stereotype. What a crazy notion!

B-but, if someone disagrees with me they are stupid and know nothing, right? And if they enjoy the story in a game more than the actual gameplay, they should just go watch a movie and shut up, right? Or have I been lied to by all the nice people on this thread? D:

story should be displayed during gameplay sections aswell though, if you only display it during cutscenes its a movie

Not everyone that dislikes Helper has something against her fast forward button comments, or is a sexist moron.

I simply don't like her because I don't think shes a very good writer and found every character she's been in charge of to be my lest favorite characters in Bioware's games.

I realize this was probably stating the obvious and didn't need to be said, but eh, I wanted to say it anyway.

Hulyen:
Wasn't this pretty much in LA Noire, where it was praised/generally ignored depending on who you talked to?

It was a good idea so I picked it up, but i couldn't finish the game because of how terribly boring it is. To be honest, if I want a conversation, i'll go talk to someone. It was a novel idea but in practise it kinda sucked, especially since it had a problem with the story, but if you've not played it i'll put it in a spoiler.

DrVornoff:

Dexter111:
There's a difference between not playing parts of the game or skipping game content because it is open world and wanting to entirely bypass essential game mechanics like combat/inventory management or whatever altogether because they frustrate/bore you. I'm talking about the latter.

What about situations like I said above? You know, how driving games aren't really my thing, so they option to skip the vehicle sections is appreciated. Am I being unreasonable by saying that would be a nice option to have?

Yes, Yes you are, because of ART-ISH-TIC IN-TAG-RAH-TEE!!![]

[] Im having a hard time not laughing my balls off... never thought this arguement could be used this way.

I'd love Bioware games with a "skip battles" section. I've never enjoyed Dragon Age combat, and Mass Effect's always felt a bit dull. I just wanted to get to the talking sections.

Also, what about replays? These games have multiple paths and choices, and I'd like to experience those without having to replay half the battles I did last time.

Besides, it'd be optional. What possible reason could you have to deny a completely optional feature that a significant number of people might find use for?

I was a tad disappointed that ME3 didn't have the story/hepler mode in it. It would have been great for additional replays.

As far as the woman herself, and the rage against her... it's kinda what Jim Sterling told people to do. The whole 'troll people when you don't like what they say' thing. Not a shock that people listened to him, it's kinda what the internet does.

Fallout 1/2 Pacifist runs are a great example of how games could do Hepler Mode which requires work. Arcanum worked well too, high charisma char with a small army at their disposal to do the fighting. I'm also part of the group who thinks Hepler, her ideas of how RPGs should work (None of the RP bit...or the G) being a cancer. Not her as a person, just the mentality and attitude, it is toxic and horrible and i wont have any part of it. IE No EA or Bioware games until they convince me they are going back to the old ways, NWN-flavour. I can dream.

Allot of people over reacting for stupid reasons.

Games have allowed you to skip combat MANY MANY times before. Total War Series basically has the biggest skip combat button of them all saying "Auto-Resolve Battle". People who object to having a skip combat button either hate not being frustrated or hate not getting annoyed.

If there is a section of a game you really hate, like I hate most of the combat in Mass Effect for being a boring cover shooter, I would have loved the option to just skip past that, get on with the game rather than have it dick me around for 5 minutes in a room with enemies I would have beaten anyway.

Playing through a game without taking shortcuts doesn't mean you had a much better experience or that other people missed out on something. It just means you really really didn't want to take the shortcut and were willing to raise your blood pressure and spend time doing it on your own.

That's fine, but how about people that are just yawning through most of the combat hu? How about you let me skip that random Pokemon encounter. You know right? The Repel, the avoid combat item that has been around for as long as most of you have been alive.

If people want it, let em have it. I'm from the Battletoads age, where a game was so gruellingly hard you couldn't get past stage 3, would I have wanted to skip that god awful bike section? No, cause I wasn't gonna admit the game beat me. But there's the thing right there. Choice. No one is forcing you to skip parts of the combat, cutscenes or whatever. Just know that there are people in the world who would like to have that shortcut.

However I do see the flip side of the coin. Developers taking shortcuts or half assing parts of the game covering it up with "you could just skip it if you don't like it". That is a real concern I have once this is implemented, which it already has been, in more games.

A part of development will get neglected if the there is an easy excuse of you don't have to play it. It will also mean that the "Casual" market will have a greater "stranglehold" over the games industry because now every game is accessible. If they run into a difficult part they can just skip it.

Games will lose complexity and depth if they aren't required to implement their mechanics well so that people can beat it. Normally a badly designed game with sloppy controls and broken gameplay suffers because the "hardcore" crowd who would usually have bought that don't pick it up.

If the market widens to include people who just want to see Asura's Wrath with all the combat cut out (which improves that Anime by a big leap) games will have a fall back if they just look nice enough.

So yes, Hepler mode is an already existing and smart thing to have in games. It allows you to spend more of your time having fun or being entertained rather than annoyed or bored. Simultaneously it also holds a risk for sloppy design and "dumbing down" to reach more people who would usually not pick up a game like this.

PS: Also for the people whining about achievements becoming pointless. They are pointless, they have always been pointless. They are an easy reward system used to keep you playing the game for longer and not trade it in. Your basically a dog on a treadmill being fed a cookie every 400 yards of running.

560'000 gamers score just tells me you have wasted ALLOT of time.

Grey Carter:
Thing is we kind of used to have a hepler mode, they were called cheat codes. I didn't see any "hardcore gamers" whining about those.

Wonder what happened to those things.

Oh, right.

Though Saint's Row The Third is the only game I've seen actually sell cheats. All others seem to have had them just... removed.

Which I feel is a damn shame.

Darkmantle:
This idea would make the achievement system essentially worthless, wouldn't it? Like, I could skip the combat and cinematic sections, couldn't I just achievement whore every game?

You say that like achievements aren't worthless now.

Shamus, you're far too reasonable for the internet. Bringing reason, logic, and discourse to our frantic unthinking mass? I mean...how unfair is that? Were now we have to consider things might not be ragefuel? Tsk. And telling us that we unfairly skipped the tedious parts in some games, but not the other tedious parts in those same game? Crap that makes sense!

Your reason fills me with RAAAAGGGEEEE!!!

I'm in favor of it though.

goliath6711:

2. Gameplay can not be skippable.
If gameplay is this essential element of a game that must be present and must not be shoved aside for any reason whatsoever, then so are cutscenes, and sound, and level design, and graphics, and story. Every single solitary one of these elements are essential for making not just a proper game but a game period. If even one of these elements is removed or can be ignored, then it is not a game by definition.

See now, this is wrong. If you have a disc that you put into a PS3 or PC or whatever, and it gives you cutscenes, sound and a story, then you wouldn't call it a game; you'd call it a movie. If you have a disc that gives you cutscenes, sound, a story, and gameplay, then you'd call it a game. If you had a disc that only gave you gameplay (and everything that gameplay entails, eg level design etc), then it can still be called a game, quality notwithstanding.

However, if you have a game with all the above stated factors, but gives you the option to actively remove gameplay then, well, it's still a game; the option to play the game is still there. Adding an option to remove the gameplay parts doesn't make the parts with the gameplay any less of a game. And hell, if all you wanted to do was watch the cutscenes, that's fine too. Do what you want. I don't care. The fact that there's an option to remove gameplay from my game isn't going to make me start researching which are the best guns to shoot lead designers with. If a game has a sequel coming out, and I want to briefly recap the storyline of the first before jumping in, I think it would be great to have an option to just have the story there, and not have to put up with some dolt yabbering on in the background on poor quality LP's on YouTube.

Put it this way; I hate FPSs. They make me want to shoot myself in the head. If I find the greatest FPS ever made, I would still rather eat a brick than just walk around shooting things. It's not got anything to do with the quality of the game, it's just a type of gameplay that I hate. But I loved Bioshock. I thought the story in Bioshock was phenomenal. I put up with the annoying gameplay just to experience the underwater city of Rapture. Actually, come to think of it, I didn't even finish Bioshock. The point is, I was willing to put up with the gameplay, but I didn't enjoy it. If the option to skip those parts were available, I'd do it. Why? Because it's a fucking underwater city. With crazy gene-splicers and giant scuba-golems with drills for arms. But that doesn't make the gameplay enjoyable for me; only worthwhile.

Shamus Young:
In Defense of Hepler Mode

Shamus offers support for a "Hepler Mode" in games.

Read Full Article

Hey Mr. Young.

Sorry to bug you but I got kind of a weird/scary question relating to this topic. I figured you or someone reading could answer it.

This is something I heard about from MovieBob a long while ago. Either in a Game Overthinker or Big Picture video. In it he talked about Nintendo's plans for a kind of "Helper mode", but more advanced than just skipping combat. The biggest idea behind it was that it would actually play the game for you when activated to. It was a really cool idea.

Now you may be asking yourself, "Well what's weird or scary about that?" Well apparently from what I heard Nintendo put a patent on the idea.

Now I am no Einstein on this stuff (worked at the patent office), but this isn't possible is it? You can't put a patent on something that you not only you haven't made, but hasn't even been made at all yet, right?

Thanks for all the brain food by the way.

Canadish:

I'll play devil's advocate for the "Reddit" Troll's in the sake of fairness, as well as try shed some light on the real troublemakers.

It wasn't just that.

She was also the one who wrote Anders, in Dragon Age 2.

Yeah, Anders is a bit of a pillock. I sort of thought he was supposed to be needy, weird and irritating in DA2. He's not the guy he was in DA:A because he's literally not that guy anymore.

BioWare games have an unfortunate tendency towards including angst-ridden navel-gazing prats, especially as male love interests for female PCs. Carth Onasi, anyone? Bloody hell, you think Anders is bad, remember Anomen Delryn? Even so I've no idea why but they keep writing them - a certain demographic must dig that sort of thing or something.

Writing a dislikeable character doesn't make her a dislikeable person, though. Besides, writing the character means you do their dialogue, their subquests, stuff like that. It doesn't mean she was in sole charge of making the chantry go boom. Even if you don't like the character or his place in the story arc, his dialogue and character were competently written.

There is nothing - nothing - in DA2 that justified the vile sexist, homophobic bile that came out of Reddit towards Ms. Hepler.

Canadish:
You're only given 3 options to Ander's offer, 2 variations of "Yes" and 1 "No" but which involved getting very blunt about it and being an asshole about it.

You are given a 'yes', a 'no' and a 'no comment', that is not the same as two ways of saying no and one yes. "I don't want you thinking of me that way" while a stupid thing to say isn't a terrible thing to say, it isn't very arsehole-y. He isn't the only character with whom flirting or turning down meets rivalry or friendship change, and you can have this conversation without any rivalry being gained when you turn him down.

Furthermore one cannot blame her for Anders change in character, that was decided before she ever wrote a thing about him.

Canadish:
Then, there was the quote's from an alleged earlier interview

These quotes are utter fabrications, a basic look into them should reveal this.

You know the real interview that everybody is getting pissed about even thought they never read it? In it she lists George R.R. Martin as one of her favorites.
Devil's advocate is one thing, spreading lies is another, and you have engaged in the latter.

You are correct that 4chan's /v/ was the one making this happen, the glee there as people hoped she committed suicide was disgusting.

Imp Emissary:

Now I am no Einstein on this stuff (worked at the patent office), but this isn't possible is it? You can't put a patent on something that you not only you haven't made, but hasn't even been made at all yet, right?

Sounds like a myth or a misunderstanding to me. What you're describing is the demo mode that every arcade cabinet game ever has - the game plays itself to draw coin-inserting players in. How could they patent that when it's basically universal in the coin-op world, and used to be common in the home gaming world too?

*Edit* I take it back. Kotaku article here. Still think it sounds like being able to switch to demo mode mid-game though.

Suicidejim:
I'd love Bioware games with a "skip battles" section. I've never enjoyed Dragon Age combat, and Mass Effect's always felt a bit dull. I just wanted to get to the talking sections.

Also, what about replays? These games have multiple paths and choices, and I'd like to experience those without having to replay half the battles I did last time.

Besides, it'd be optional. What possible reason could you have to deny a completely optional feature that a significant number of people might find use for?

I know how you feel. Mass Effect's combat was fun the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time but after that it just ends up feeling like work and isn't really fun.

Thank goodness for Youtube.

ms_sunlight:

Imp Emissary:

Now I am no Einstein on this stuff (worked at the patent office), but this isn't possible is it? You can't put a patent on something that you not only you haven't made, but hasn't even been made at all yet, right?

Sounds like a myth or a misunderstanding to me. What you're describing is the demo mode that every arcade cabinet game ever has - the game plays itself to draw coin-inserting players in. How could they patent that when it's basically universal in the coin-op world, and used to be common in the home gaming world too?

No, the idea was that say your in the middle of playing Zelda, you phase the game go to a menu and turn on the mode, and the game actually play itself for you. Not just showing you gameplay, but actually playing in real time. And it could be turned off and on by your will.

Again I am pretty sure no one is even close to doing this so they pretty much are saying they own something that isn't real yet.

ms_sunlight:

*Edit* I take it back. Kotaku article here. Still think it sounds like being able to switch to demo mode mid-game though.

Pretty much yeah. Neat idea, if you can do it, but if someone does would this mean that Nintendo owns it? How can that be legal?

Am I the only one who sees this for what it really is?

She's a relatively large, unattractive woman who said something honestly really stupid. I think most people get what she's saying, she just phrased it so freaking badly.

Personally, I think Bioware games are getting obnoxiously off-point with the relationship bullshit, and the story would be much better if they would just write it without so much emphasis on pandering to every single subdivision of humanity... but it's not just about that.

Not only is her company obnoxiously rubbing the controversial parts of the story in everyone's face and defending them with zeal... and not only did she pretty much say that she'd be better off writing something that isn't a video game... but she's not naked and she's not attractive, and from experience on the internet, that means very few people will listen to her.

I'm not really certain if she's making a good point to be honest. Maybe if she was Megan Fox, I'd take her more seriously. Unfortunately, her looks and her attitude make her unattractive, and her position unappealing. It sucks, but hey... welcome to reality.

EDIT:

goliath6711:
One of my favorite ways to play sports games (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.) is to set up a cpu vs.cpu match.

No offense, but you sound like the most boring person ever lol.

My girlfriend is not at all interested in playing videogames, partly because she thinks she'll be terrible at them. I did, however, intrigue her about the possibilities of a well-realised interactive story as I was gushing about the Mass Effect trilogy. She said I had made her curious enough that she "almost wanted to try it."

I tossed around the idea that I could play the combat parts and she could make the conversation choices, but this wouldn't really work well: combat sections can take a while and she would surely grow bored of watching them. For this reason, I support Hepler Mode even though I wouldn't use it personally.

Adam Jensen:
It wouldn't have been such a bad statement to make if she was a good writer. But she's one of those idiots who thinks that Twilight is cool. And she's awful with Bioware fanbase. My new mission in life is to earn enough money to buy a controlling share of EA, fire that stupid bitch and set Bioware on the right track of making great RPG's again.

You know, maybe calling someone an "idiot" and a "stupid bitch" is not the best way to make your argument in a forum whose theme is complaining about gamers who insult for no valid reason.

You also can't complain about she being awful with Bioware's fanbase if you somehow decided your "new mission in life" is making enough money exclusively to fire her.

My point is, you kinda sound like a jerk. Actually, even creppily psychopathic. Maybe you could use some rest and calm down.

I agree someone should invent a game mode without all the pesky interactivity. Think about it you could just sit on your couch and watch the games play out all by themselves with no action required on your end. You could see the entire story without touching the controller. I bet if it got popular enough you could hire honest to goodness living people to act out this "Helper Mode" rather than rely on computer animation. If it REALLY took off you could set up times to demonstrate this "Helper Mode" to entire theaters full of people and charge them admission. I bet there's real money to be made if you could just find a way of watching games instead of playing them.

Yeah ya see what Ms Helper was/is looking for is called a MOVIE or TV SHOW. They show em on TVs, you can see em theaters, hell, you can even watch them on your phone or computer or even gaming consoles! Games are already getting painfully easier with each passing day and now you have a section of people bitching because they can't skip the interactive parts. Get the fuck out of here! Seriously if you are trying to tell me this is what you want with a straight face then please turn around and take up a new hobby because obviously gaming isn't for you.

Games by their very nature are meant to be PLAYED. If you don't want to deal with that then go fucking watch a TV show or a movie or watch a Youtube video if you're really aching for the garbage that passes for story telling in video games. However, what isn't needed is a way to skip the very part of what makes a video game a video GAME. You see THIS is why we can't have nice things.

"Games are about gameplay!" screams the crazed purist. Actually, games are about fun

Sure, except you could say that about every form of entertainment!

-Books aren't about reading, they're about having fun!
-Movies aren't about watching a non-interactive story on a screen, it's about having fun =D
-Murdering prostitiutes every Sunday night isn't because I'm complused to, it's about having fun

Games are not that special.

Edit: In a perfect world every form of entertainment would come with so many options you could go through any story in any medium any way you wanted to. Fuck man, it's only 2012.

*Sigh* Calling someone a "crazy purist" when they'd like some gameplay in their games is like calling (a gamer) entitled or whiny these days. It's virtually meaningless and it does nothing but make you sound like a degrading asshole. What happened to the gamers who wrote about gamers that were actually on the other gamer's side? It seems like every fuckpump with a column or a internet video show gets off on berating gamers even if they've admitted to being one themselves (but of course, they aren't that type of gamer).

And guess what (breaking fucking news!!!) some asshats on the internet overreacted (ahhhh!)! That doesn't immediateyly make them wrong and that doesn't mean the person they're "bullying" - in essence - deserves more sympathy than anybody else.

___________ You know what? Games should have more options, for everything. "Herpler mode" could very easily and understandable be included in that. I've already seen several games that had 1 hour - 2 hour long cutscenes come with a movie viewing mode. So fuck it, yes, games could come with a movie viewing "herpler" option with them. But they shouldn't be all about that. Games ARE about gameplay. derp

And from what I've heard she's single-handedly responsible for Anders in DA2 so she deserves whatever writing job she can get.

Edit: and the day I pay $60 for a non-interactive game is the day I swear off games and drink myself to the brink of insanity.

Skipping combat? Are you mad? Gaming as a whole still hasn't even figured out how to properly let us skip cutscenes, tutorials, and place proper checkpoints yet! Granted, I don't actually care if other people can skip the combat bits in games (doesn't mean I have to), but asking for this seems like wishful thinking right now. It's 2012 and games still suck in the skipping department. Hell, speaking of BioWare, let's direct some ire at Mass Effect 3's shitty checkpoints and unskippable cutscenes. The big problem is placing the checkpoint BEFORE the unskippable cutscene instead of after where it belongs.

And the unskippable tutorial on Earth. I've already beaten the game once. Was it really necessary to make me go through all that crap again? Yeah, I know how to shoot a gun. I know how to take cover. I know how to reload. Just let me get on with the proper first mission of the game already.

Again, lots of games are guilty of this nonsense. In 2012, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect issues like this to no longer exist, but yet, they still do. So asking them to let us skip another part of the game when they haven't mastered making the parts that are in much greater need of being skippable actually being skippable is just madness. Part of me is actually interested to see a game developer try this and see how badly they fuck it up like they've been fucking up all the other stuff that should be skippable for pretty much the entire duration of the time I've been playing video games.

Seriously, why the fuck is it so hard for beating the game to create a small note in a save file somewhere that says "this player beat the game now, make the tutorial and every cutscene skippable in case they don't want to go through them again for whatever reason"?! >:[

FredTheUndead:
As for Hepler herself, while the community at the time certainly didn't handle things correctly, she IS nothing less than a living tumor, one of many Bioware developed and rotted down to nothing because of.

And this is your idea of handling things correctly?! You are a horrible person.

DrVornoff:

FredTheUndead:
I read the article, I merely disagree with it. His example of combat being a chore in the Witcher 2 could be improved merely by having Witcher 2 combat not be shit in the first place.

If you did, then you didn't put any real thought into it.

And yeah no Hepler is awful. I don't dislike her because she's a woman or anything (that'd be an odd place to come from for a variety of reasons), I hate her because she's a bad writer who clearly dislikes games, and who when originally called out for her bad writing basically used "you just hate it because I'm a woman" as a defense.

The way you expressed yourself was still dickish and seemed to justify the horrible treatment she received. Your vitriolic rhetoric makes it seem as if you approve of that sort of abuse and nonsense all in the name of your impotent, insignificant rage. So yeah, I stand by my comments. Don't like it? Prove me wrong, sparky. Act like an adult.

You accusations of not putting any thought into things certainly ring clear when you yourself are just acting like a condescending asshole and not making any actual defense.

As I made clear, she does not deserve the hatred sent her way because she's a woman or anything like that. What she DOES absolutely deserve is any hatred sent her way over her being an awful writer or using her oh so beloved "you're just made because I'm a woman and have a job in the industry!" argument. She's incompetent at what she does (which she only does because she failed as a novelist and is married to another employee), and her defenses are infantile and petty. So yes, much of the hate sent her way is 100% legitimate.

mjc0961:

FredTheUndead:
As for Hepler herself, while the community at the time certainly didn't handle things correctly, she IS nothing less than a living tumor, one of many Bioware developed and rotted down to nothing because of.

And this is your idea of handling things correctly?! You are a horrible person.

My idea of handling an incompetent IS for people to tell them that they are incompetent yes.

FredTheUndead:
Snip

What was wrong with the Anvil of the Void in Dragon Age? What was wrong with Legacy for dragon age 2?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here