In Defense of Hepler Mode

[Rawne1980]

>Q: What is your least favorite thing about working in the industry?

>A: Playing the games. This is probably a terrible thing to admit, but it has definitely been the single most difficult thing for me. I came into the job out of a love of writing, not a love of playing games... I'm really terrible at so many things which most games use incessantly -- I have awful hand-eye coordination, I don't like tactics, I don't like fighting, I don't like keeping track of inventory, and I can't read a game map to save my life.

>Q: If you could tell developers of games to make sure to put one thing in games to appeal to a broader audience which includes women, what would that one thing be?

>A: A fast-forward button. Games almost always include a way to "button through" dialogue without paying attention, because they understand that some players don't enjoy listening to dialogue and they don't want to stop their fun. Yet they persist in practically coming into your living room and forcing you to play through the combats even if you're a player who only enjoys the dialogue.

Just thought i'd throw in the whole post that got people annoyed.

It wasn't the "skip the action" that got peoples backs up it was the "disliking games" as a whole.

Now, as a writer she doesn't have to play the games or enjoy them but you have to admit it was a bit of a silly thing to say. That is one of those things you keep to your bloody self.

It's like working at a school and hating kids. Yes you can do the job still but you don't tell the little bastards you want them to burn in the fiery pits of hell.

What the gaming community doesn't know won't hurt them ... or cause them to hurl abuse all over the internet.

Personally I have nothing against the woman, it's not as if she's single handedly destroying BioWare.

As long as they don't start shifting the writers into gameplay development we'll all be okay.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Like I said, I'm crap at RTS. You could release the most awesome story-based game in the world, with great dialogue and branching story paths, but if the way to get to those sections was by playing through RTS battles, I'd never play it. Even if I did plough through it once (like my friend did with V:TMB) I'd never get to see other branches of the story because the combat wouldn't be fun for me. That's how some people feel when they look at a great game with branching story paths and choice-based roleplaying like The Witcher 2, but know they're crap at action-RPG combat.

__
Let's look at arguably the best story-driven RTS - Homeworld. In that game, story is generally delivered through gameplay. A "Hepler mode" Homeworld would be missing several of its most impactful moments. Hepler mode is fundamentally incompatible with the way many video games tell stories.

On the other hand, I think the need for this sort of game where the gameplay is the story could effectively be filled by high-budget iFiction and VNs. There's probably a market for that sort of thing.

The game would have to fit in for this type of mode, Bioware games are a good example of the type of game that would best be suited.

I'm not convinced Bioware games could rest on their storytelling alone. The stories they tell are very "gamey," with an emphasis on quests and clearly delineated decision points over pure storytelling. They're also too linear and non-reactive to hold up without combat gameplay. They sort of work as context for the games, but I don't think they could hold up on their own merits.

It wouldn't work with every game, it would be awful in a game like Bastion, for instance, but it would work for some games.

Yeah, I'm very excited to see development on the Bastion/Crusader Kings II end of storytelling, where the story is more effectively incorporated into gameplay or told through game mechanics. There's this game called Cult [https://cultrl.wordpress.com/] that I'm keeping an eye on. It's probably over-ambitious but will help expand the medium if even 10% of the concept makes it into the final product.

 

[secretsantaone]

But people *do* hate her for being a woman.
Did you see the sexist ad hominems thrown her way? It didn't start with her retort.

She suffered countless instances of people making derogatory remarks regarding her sex, appearance and ability, and when she chose to respond in kind (and quite wittily to boot) the bleeting horde cried out indignantly about "reverse sexism" and other such nonsense, escalating the abuse at the same time.

So yeah, you'll have to excuse me when I say you're a horrible person for referring to her as a "living tumour". I don't have any patience for your kind. You add absolutely nothing of value to the discourse.

OT: More options in terms of how to approach and experience a game is only a positive in my book. I think most attempts to make the medium more accessible is a good thing.

Some people =/= all.

Disregarding all criticism because of a vocal minority of sexists is abhorrent, but pretty much the standard for Bioware recently.

'Living tumour' is an apt metaphor, because he sees her as behaving as a tumour does, killing the host from the inside.

Gaming does not need to be 'more accessible'. That leads to nothing but shovelware. Companies should be catering to their existing consumers, not potential ones. If your consumers are not happy with your product or staff, you're doing yourself no favours by defending them. Apparently believing that makes me 'entitled'.

 

[4173]

Having the option to skip combat doesn't mean it needs to be employed all the time (regardless of what Helper may or may not have intended). I would assume that if one had literally no interest in gameplay games are an incredibly expensive way to consume stories.

 

[Kahunaburger]

So many people missing the point. Let's make it real clear, an optional "Hepler Mode" would not affect you. Do you really care that much that there is an OPTION[/b} to do something you don't like? Just don't do it and stop giving a fuck about how other people play their fucking games.

It would mean that story could not be told through gameplay. Not, that, you know, this is exactly rare in modern games.

 

[wintercoat]

So many people missing the point. Let's make it real clear, an optional "Hepler Mode" would not affect you. Do you really care that much that there is an OPTION[/b} to do something you don't like? Just don't do it and stop giving a fuck about how other people play their fucking games.

It would mean that story could not be told through gameplay. Not, that, you know, this is exactly rare in modern games.

Or worse, they'd have to make content specifically for the "storymode" that fills in the shooty/stabby parts of a game. Imagine how disjointed Mass Effect would be if all you did was watch cutscenes and dialog. Imagine going from dropping down on Eden Prime to Jenkins's death, to saving and talking to Ashley, then you're talking to scientists, cut to Nihilus's death, then talking to the farmers, then the dock worker, then you're suddenly at the beacon. There would need to be filler cutscenes where Shepard and Co. destroy the Geth drones, rescue Ashley, come across the dig site, meet the scientists and farmers, get to the dock, fight off the Geth(it's the reason shits going down, you can't just cut out the entire fight against the Geth, it'd have to be cutscene'd), and disarm the bombs. You can't just have Shepard walking around a deserted Eden Prime. The whole reason you're there is because it's become a combat zone, but you don't run into anyone? That would break immersion rather quickly. And even if you could, you would still need the cutscenes to fill in required combat scenes. The drones that kill Jenkins don't just fly off. The Geth that are attacking Ash don't just saunter off. And there are dozens of examples like this.

Combat is more important to the story than what most people seem to think. If you cut the combat, then you're cutting the entire point of the story most of the time. The plot for most games nowadays exists solely for a reason to commit acts of violence against the plots' enemies.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Combat is more important to the story than what most people seem to think. If you cut the combat, then you're cutting the entire point of the story most of the time. The plot for most games nowadays exists solely for a reason to commit acts of violence against the plots' enemies.

Yeah, I agree with this about most modern games. I'm all for games that focus on non-combat storytelling, but I think a lot of people are severely overestimating the ability of most modern game narratives to stand on their own. How many people would actually give Mass Effect 3 the time of day if it didn't have combat segments?

And, as you pointed out, cutting out the combat just runs the cost of the game up even further haha.

 

[secretsantaone]

'Living tumour' is an apt metaphor, because he sees her as behaving as a tumour does, killing the host from the inside.

Please don't tell me you're defending this nonsense.

Gaming does not need to be 'more accessible'. That leads to nothing but shovelware. Companies should be catering to their existing consumers, not potential ones.

Unfounded claim. Movies are more accessible than they've ever been and even though we get a lot of crap, we still get solid gold every single year. Besides, even if games focused exclusively on people like you, 90% of them would still suck. That's just the way it goes. Stop pissing and moaning about how people other than you are getting into the medium.

Of course I'm defending it, it's a perfectly reasonable metaphor which makes sense in the context. Give me a real argument why it isn't rather than 'it's so obvious I don't need to!'.

Comparing videogames to movies is probably the greatest pitfall anyone discussing games can fall into. Movies and videogames are fundamentally different. What do you even mean by 'movies are more accessible'? That they're catering to the lowest common denominator? Why is that a good thing?

With videogames, 'more accessible' means you have to simplify gameplay. There's no getting around that. If you want to expand your audience you have to make it so people who are unfamiliar to gaming can play it and not get frustrated. Gameplay is what makes the game, movies can afford to deal with more general ideas and less controversial concepts because they can make up for it with clever cinematic techniques and good acting. If you're dumbing-down gameplay, you're always going to get a poorer quality game.

Oh and to the people saying 'cheat codes are the same as skipping gameplay!', no they're not. They simply alter it. There are very few (if any) cheat codes that remove gameplay altogether.

 

[Eamar]

Of course I'm defending it, it's a perfectly reasonable metaphor which makes sense in the context. Give me a real argument why it isn't rather than 'it's so obvious I don't need to!'.

Because he's talking about a real, live human being who's done nothing wrong other than write some parts of a game he didn't like?

As I've already said in this thread, I really wish people would be more civil on the internet. Call me unrealistic, I know, but I can dream. She's not a dictator, or a rapist, or a child-killer. She's a game writer. Not even a particularly powerful one. She doesn't need to be called a "tumour"

 

[twiceworn]

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.

Back atcha, kiddo.

So yes, much of the hate sent her way is 100% legitimate.

No it isn't and you're a horrible person for defending it. You are not justified. Get the fuck over yourself.

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

And by telling them you actually mean, "harass the shit out of them."

Maybe she's a nice person in real life, I don't know. I DOUBT it, given her typically arrogant responses to criticism, and that whole "we wanted to write a fantasy story that was different from the typical one written by some old white man" nonsense, but I don't really know.

By the same logic you're using, I'm totally justified in writing you off as a hostile, immature, nasty little brat even though I can't know that with 100% certainty.

What I DO know is that she brings nothing good to the table for Bioware, she just sits there, festering ill feelings in the community and clogging up the works. That's what a tumor is.

I never went to pre-med, but I'm pretty sure that's not what tumor is.

So do I hate her for some bigoted reason, or wish death on her? No. Do I think she's good for Bioware or gaming in general? No. Do I think a skip combat button is a good idea? Absolutely not.

But you do support harassment and vitriol because she said something you didn't like. That's what makes you an asshole.

People like Hepler that want a well-told story and not a game, should, guess what - go see a movie. Or read a book.

What if like me you don't like driving sections in an action game and would like the option to skip them and get back to the other gameplay mechanics that you like?

I've asked this multiple times and no one has provided me with an answer.

OH GOD someone get this idiot a movie to watch, i will say this once and only once. GAMES ARE GAMEPLAY

Didn't read the whole article.

Once again in part because I would have if I gave a shit.

It would still make you an asshole if you did.

So basically gamers are getting angry that someone suggested taking out the game bit of games. What did anyone expect? It was a pretty stupid suggestion.

Didn't read the whole article.

I see this "Hepler" mode as a capitulation to incompetence.

Basicly it amounts to "we agree our gameplay is bad and not fun, so instead of improving it and making it fun, we'll give you the option to skip gameplay entirely".

Didn't read the whole article.

Let's look at arguably the best story-driven RTS - Homeworld. In that game, story is generally delivered through gameplay. A "Hepler mode" Homeworld would be missing several of its most impactful moments. Hepler mode is fundamentally incompatible with the way many video games tell stories.

Shamus did specifically say that this idea wouldn't work on all games. For the same reason that not all games need a 1st person shooting element.

'Living tumour' is an apt metaphor, because he sees her as behaving as a tumour does, killing the host from the inside.

Please don't tell me you're defending this nonsense.

Gaming does not need to be 'more accessible'. That leads to nothing but shovelware. Companies should be catering to their existing consumers, not potential ones.

Unfounded claim. Movies are more accessible than they've ever been and even though we get a lot of crap, we still get solid gold every single year. Besides, even if games focused exclusively on people like you, 90% of them would still suck. That's just the way it goes. Stop pissing and moaning about how people other than you are getting into the medium.

you insist on missing the point that game means gameplay and that skipping it would make it into nothing but a movie or interactive story. the ability to skip it would make games worse as more people who like story not gameplay would buy it and developers would start catering to these people in order to make money and that would turn gameplay in games into an optional feature. business go where the money is its that simple, gameplay would be made into a minority . i do not however condone bullying someone for having an opinion, we all have the right to an opinion without being bullied for having it. i do however think writing for games when you don't like gameplay is a problem that needs to be fixed as gameplay should be intertwined with story which is hard if the story writer doesn't like gameplay, so doesn't play games for fun so wont know what we, the players enjoy or would like to see.

 

[secretsantaone]

Of course I'm defending it, it's a perfectly reasonable metaphor which makes sense in the context. Give me a real argument why it isn't rather than 'it's so obvious I don't need to!'.

Because he's talking about a real, live human being who's done nothing wrong other than write some parts of a game he didn't like?

As I've already said in this thread, I really wish people would be more civil on the internet. Call me unrealistic, I know, but I can dream. She's not a dictator, or a rapist, or a child-killer. She's a game writer. Not even a particularly powerful one. She doesn't need to be called a "tumour"

It's called a metaphor.

It's also true, Hepler is increasingly becoming a tumour-like burden on Bioware with massive criticism from the fanbase and some terrible writing. A lot of this criticism was entirely legitimate but was heaped in with the more rabid, illogical fans when Hepler said 'you're just jealous of my vagina and job in the games industry'.

 

[Eamar]

Of course I'm defending it, it's a perfectly reasonable metaphor which makes sense in the context. Give me a real argument why it isn't rather than 'it's so obvious I don't need to!'.

Because he's talking about a real, live human being who's done nothing wrong other than write some parts of a game he didn't like?

As I've already said in this thread, I really wish people would be more civil on the internet. Call me unrealistic, I know, but I can dream. She's not a dictator, or a rapist, or a child-killer. She's a game writer. Not even a particularly powerful one. She doesn't need to be called a "tumour"

It's called a metaphor.

It's also true, Hepler is increasingly becoming a tumour-like burden on Bioware with massive criticism from the fanbase and some terrible writing. A lot of this criticism was entirely legitimate but was heaped in with the more rabid, illogical fans when Hepler said 'you're just jealous of my vagina and job in the games industry'.

It's called an insult, metaphor or not, and it's unnecessary.

I'm not going to repeat myself, but suffice it to say that anyone who thinks Hepler (ONE writer) is the problem with Bioware, or even a major problem, is deluded. Plus a huge amount of the criticism was based on completely fabricated "quotes." And the vagina comment was a) a response to the gender-based slurs being levelled at her ("*****" and "****" may not seem so bad to you, but believe me they feel like cheap moves if you're a woman) and b) nowhere near as bad as half the stuff so-called "fans" were coming up with. Are people supposed to just roll over and take these outrageous comments? Sure, it may have been a bit unprofessional but I can't say I blame her given what she had to put up with.

Believe it or not, I am a big fan of a lot of Bioware's games. I'm pissed off with some of the things they've done recently. I'm not a massive fan of everything Hepler has written (though I did like her stuff in DA:O, which people tend to conventiently forget when writing her off). I'm just saying people don't need to be throwing these disgusting insults about. It's difficult to make a reasonable point when people insist on acting like this.

 

[Timmibal]

Seamus did bring up an interesting point when he addressed how so many games have just become 'cutscene/combat/cutscene/combat'. A point I'm not sure I agree with, especially in games with a high intensity, my hands get tired enough without having them constantly tensed and ready. Cutscenes allow the player to take a break in an action-heavy game.

He also brings up the comparison with open-world games such as Skyrim which apparently weave the narrative into gameplay... I'm sure some do, matey, but the only difference between Skyrim and Mass Effect was we never got to move around in skyrim while we were getting blocks of exposition thrown at us.

But I digress.

To those of you who are using non-lethal or pacifist runthroughs of Rpgs as examples of 'Hepler mode', stop. Stop it immediately. Ms Hepler only used the phrase 'Combat' because from looking at her resume, she has never actually been on the development team of a game which allowed any other form of advancement. What she actually means (and by all means prove me wrong if you can), is Challenge.

Hepler equates 'combat' to 'challenge' because that's how Bioware RPGs work. There are elements where other avenues are possible, but the meat-and-potatoes of a Bioware RPG is combat. Those of you who have played non-lethal or diplomat playthroughs of RPGs which allow it will be able to acknowledge that the challenge of a non-combat role is often more time consuming and difficult than simply wading through with a '+5 exploding sword of kickass (tempered) {Flaming}'.

Still have doubts? With this in mind watch the promo clip and read her responses in interviews and mentally replace 'combat' with 'challenge'. All of her arguments sound exactly the same, and become even less defensible.

Do I support more gameplay options in RPGs? - Absolutely.
Do I think you can present an RPG with a straight face without SOME form of challenge? - No bloody way.

Should a writer be creating for a medium without understanding this core facet of development? - Unacceptable insults directed against Ms. Hepler and debates as to her competancy as a writer in general aside, no, I do not believe she has any business creatively contributing to this medium (ESPECIALLY at a AAA studio which pretty much specializes in RPG derivatives) without this fundamental understanding of how games, and more specifically, RPGs work.