1133 réponses à ce sujet

[shootist70]

Let's take the whole 'dumbing down' myth and put it into perspective, and let's do the same for 'what constitutes an RPG.'

RPG's are fiction - that's all they essentially are. Their whole premise is to deliver a more immersive fictive experience than other game genres. What many mistake here as 'dumbing down' isn't that at all, it's what almost all creators of fiction aim for, and what Bioware seem to be aiming for - giving the creation universal themes. 

Those themes aren't up for a hell of a lot of interpretation. They've been the driving factors of fiction for millenia and revolve around 'human' elements: characterisation, story, character interaction, emotive content, plot and plot progression. Developers want to change RPG's because they've tended to be devoid of these human elements, and progression and interaction have come by horribly artificial mechanics. Plot and characters have been thin, linear and predictable so that players can move through them by contrived means involving skill and gear progression. Universal elements were arbitrary because they were relegated to mere fluff, so they  assumed the form of horrendous infodump and backstory because progression is not dependant enough on them. It is in fact too dependant on mechanics that are external to those elements.

The external mechanics have the exact result of driving the player out of the elements that most fictional creations strive to keep them immersed in by universally accepted convention. This non-conformity to universal themes has always alienated RPG's from their potential audience. Think about it - if RPG's are dumbing down, then how come hardly anybody played them back before this dumbing down allegedly took place? Why, back then, were these supposedly 'smarter' consumers avoiding them like the plague, leaving them as a very niche genre associated with a minority of nerds? Answer: they didn't have universal appeal. If RPG's had combat drama that was driven by traditional story-telling - driven by a coherent narrative and dependant upon character interaction, then the result would have emotive and fictive content more in line with the old heroic saga, and would be universally recognisable.


The bottom line is right here: supporters of RPG legacy mechanics aren't actually objecting to 'dumbing down', what they're objecting to are developer attempts to make RPG's universally themed.

As such they represent little more than obstacles to creative development and evolution.

Having said that, I see DAO and the ME series as little more than tentative steps in the right direction. Bioware are failing to recognise how essential a more open world is. If they want to offer their players progression through player choice of narrative, plotline and character interaction then they need to offer a more expansive world that can offer real variety of these things. Bethesda continue to really stab at this, but so far their open worlds offer little more than side-content  that again has no real impact on their thin, linear plot progression.

Still, the genre is getting there. And as the cash and talent flows in, and gaming platform technology improves, we might see real results in the future. Continued use of legacy RPG mechanics will only result in more alienation of the potential resources needed to achieve that.

Modifié par shootist70, 17 août 2010 - 07:14 .

[filetemo]

shootist70 wrote...

Bethesda continue to really stab at this, but so far their open worlds offer little more than side-content  that again has no real impact on their thin, linear plot progression.

That's why many have high hopes for Oblivion 2, let's see if they evolve or oblivion is just going to be fallout with swords, as fallout was just oblivion with guns

Modifié par filetemo, 17 août 2010 - 11:52 .

[Urik187]

filetemo wrote...

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.

In bioware's wildest dreams, they get rid of inventory, skills, tactical combat, leveling up, customisation options and stats. All those heavy and difficult to learn rpg things that make them unatractive to casual gamers. They can't do it yet, because hardcore rpg gamers still have power, but they really would like their games to stop getting labeled rpgs, because that's like a stigma for the fps crowd.

Bioware's perfect game would be: premade character, choices, love interests, different endings and simple combat "press A to win" they are moving slowly to that, Heavy Rain with swords and magic.

Do you remember those books of "choose your own adventure"? that's what bioware wants to do.

They are forcing us to assume slowly the changes made to dilute the rpg traits, and in 5 years we will call bioware games "adventures" because the rpgs will be no more.

Then maybe, they'll get their dream of selling 10 million units.

Questions:
How do you know what BIOWARE wants? to you work for them? are you one of the founding members? Does BIOWARE use you personally for inspiration?

My guess is you answered NO to all those questions. Therefore how can you sit here, on a BIOWARE Forum, and pretend to know what BIOWARE sees for the future??

is it wrong to evolve the RPG genre?
Is it wrong to want to make an interactive story where you choose the way it unfolds?

Not once have I heard BIOWARE say we want to eliminate all aspects of the way RPG games are.
I think they are taking the risk of creating different types of RPGs from DAO to ME2, I think BIOWARE is a company that always pushes the limits of what is possible.

and I THINK THAT EVERY SINGLE BIOWARE EMPLOYEE WORKS HIS/HER @SS OFF. and for what? so you can sit there in your boring job hating lfe and pretending to know what BIOWARE thinks????

Grow up dude

[Alixyveth]

I agree rpg dosen't alaways have to be open world or inventory ect. Traveling to another place to solve a problem is rpg I myself like the idea of making the story line unfold the way I want too from begining to end, to me this game is like a good book I can't put down and I thank Bioware for puting this kinde of game out there. and I'm looking forward to D,A,2,and any more down load to D,A, your friend Alixyveth

[Haexpane]

What BioWare wants.

What BioWare needs.

What BioWare wants.

What BioWare needs.

A Bearded Hawke to be there for them.

(What BioWare needs).

What BioWare needs.(Oh).

What BioWare wants.(Oh).

What BioWare needs.(yeah).

What BioWare wants.

Strength,Dexterity, and a Bad Ass.

[Schneidend]

jackkel dragon wrote...

Right, I'm sure that's exactly what they want...

Edit: Wait... do you have any recent BioWare games?

I actually have their latest programming abortions, Mass Effect 2 amd Dragon Age, right here! Look at these horrors. They have experience gains for killing monsters, level ups, customized skill progression, equipment with which to outfit your characters as you see fit, and a half-dozen novels' worth of dialogue between them. The presence of these things are PROOF that Bioware wants to remove these mechanics and concepts from all of their future games!

PROOF, I say!

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Merced256 wrote...

At this point i'm forced to believe you're just that dense. You're speaking to my prejudices while making statements such as:

Role-playing games have always been about interactive narrative.In fact, interactive narrative is one of the few things that is actually a consensus element of the RPG.

As i said before, people identify best with different aspects of the genre. That doesn't mean your rigid definition is any more correct than mine or Bioware's. Why are you so insistent thats not the case? You are not jesus of RPGs, your word is certainly not law. Yet somehow i'm the one that refuses to debate when your points are based solely on what you believe to be true and you will brook no alternative interpretation of what constitutes a RPG. Or at the very least what many people have come to love about computer based RPGs.

Wait: what?  My rigid definition of RPG's?  My whole point this entire time has been that RPG's don't have a rigid definition!  I've been pointing out how all of the individual sacred (mechanics) cows from D&D and its cousins aren't immutable, that a game can achieve the same mechanical effect with a different construction.  I haven't said that any of the aforementioned sacred cows don't belong in RPG's or can't be an entertaining part of them.  I've said that my preferences don't align with the old-school D&D approach anymore, but I was careful to label them as my preferences.

You have been beating straw men the whole time, telling me how I would respond to you, rather than actually reading my responses.

The above statement is as close as I've come to defining any element in a role-playing game.  If interactive narration doesn't enter into a game at some level, I don't see how it can be called an RPG.  That's pretty basic, though, isn't it?  All that means is that an RPG has a story and that the player's decisions have some effect on it.  Is there a game out there widely accepted as an RPG that doesn't do this at some level?  It was interactive narration that first turned a miniatures wargame into a role-playing game.

My objection here is to people deciding that anyone not sharing their gaming preferences are philistine filth unworthy to play a true RPG.  I'm pointing out that modular mechanical elements are not definitive, that's all.  Where some are saying "must", I'm simply saying "might".  Many of the ones saying "must" then go on to define RPG's according to their tastes and habits.  I'm just pointing out that this is fallacious.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the old saws of RPG's.  I've played lots and lots of different games that use them and had a good time.  But I'm also interested in the evolution of the medium, too.  I understand some people would rather stand pat.  That's fine.  I also like more recent editions of D&D than the older ones.  Some people still play out of the white box.  That's fine, too.

But when an old-school white-boxer wants to argue that 3rd or 4th Edition isn't even a role-playing game anymore, he's going to get most of the same arguments the computer grognards are getting from me in here.  

I'm hoping you're getting what I'm saying here.  I'm not saying that RPG's can't or even shouldn't have all of these things like levels, gear-dependency, looting, xp-per kill (or xp at all).  I'm just saying that none of those things is essential.  If I were trying to design and sell a game, I'd have at least some of them in there just to keep my customers in their comfort zone.  But I could also design a game that tossed out some or all of those and could be justifiably called a role-playing game. 

All of those things add a sense of being rewarded, and help to keep players engaged.  WoW wrote the book on addictive gameplay, using all of those elements.  If he weren't dead, I'd swear that B.F. Skinner himself had designed it. 

I would just like to see more open minds around here.  It doesn't cost any money to concede that something isn't one's cup of tea without demonizing or deriding those who might enjoy it.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

RPG's are fiction - that's all they essentially are. Their whole premise is to deliver a more immersive fictive experience than other game genres. What many mistake here as 'dumbing down' isn't that at all, it's what almost all creators of fiction aim for, and what Bioware seem to be aiming for - giving the creation universal themes. 

Those themes aren't up for a hell of a lot of interpretation. They've been the driving factors of fiction for millenia and revolve around 'human' elements: characterisation, story, character interaction, emotive content, plot and plot progression. Developers want to change RPG's because they've tended to be devoid of these human elements, and progression and interaction have come by horribly artificial mechanics. Plot and characters have been thin, linear and predictable so that players can move through them by contrived means involving skill and gear progression. Universal elements were arbitrary because they were relegated to mere fluff, so they  assumed the form of horrendous infodump and backstory because progression is not dependant enough on them. It is in fact too dependant on mechanics that are external to those elements.

...

The bottom line is right here: supporters of RPG legacy mechanics aren't actually objecting to 'dumbing down', what they're objecting to are developer attempts to make RPG's universally themed.

As such they represent little more than obstacles to creative development and evolution.

Interesting premise in the first paragraph.  I'd be able to accept it better if you presented as one possible element in Bioware's creative agenda.  I'm not convinced that their greatest concern is driving toward a more narrativist approach in their RPG's.  If you start taking apart most rules-heavy game systems (especially D&D and its derivatives) you just start noticing how redundant and inelegant the systems are.  I dunno, maybe the pros love layered rules systems that introduce an illusory complexity for it's own sake.  As an amateur, though, I go for the most aerodynamic way to achieve the same result.

I do suspect that many designers would like to feel more free to write their own games instead of rehash what's been standard for 36 years.  The problem is deciding how incremental to make the change.

3rd Edition D&D is a good example.  You can see that the designers straining at the old D&D rules, trying to make their own game.  But the financial risk of changing too much too soon made some changes prohibitive.  Bioware may not have exactly the same concerns, though.  There are only so many people interested in D&D, and tabletop RPG's are already a niche market.  If a new design bothers too many old-timers, they risk losing player base that won't be replaced.  If Bioware makes an RPG more accessible to more people, they stand to gain by expanding a player base.  If I lose 5000 customers and gain 20000, I'm doing all right.  There's also the chance that the 5000 disaffected customers may look at my new stuff and find that it's not so bad after all.

I don't think RPG legacy folks are objecting to a certain agenda or trying to keep better story-telling out of RPG's.  I think they see elements that they enjoy and associate with the RPG experience suddenly being treated as obsolete, and it's upsetting.  This is especially true when only so many companies are producing the kind of product they want.  We've all been there: sometimes you're watching the taillights recede in the distance, and sometimes you're riding in the car.

[Mehow_pwn]

Wait so some people think that mass effect 2 wasnt a rpg?.. thats kinda wrong.. I would rather say.. Mass effect 2 was an RPG barerly..,and not a good one.. because then halo,God of war , uncharted and ****** lots of FPS with story would be defined as rpg as well....



And for does people who think that this theory goes with Kotor that is bull**** aswell because Kotor had inventory level,complicted choices class/lvl and exp

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

shootist70 wrote...

The bottom line is right here: supporters of RPG legacy mechanics aren't actually objecting to 'dumbing down', what they're objecting to are developer attempts to make RPG's universally themed.

Put simply:

People are hating because Bioware is going in the direction of simplifying things for the masses.
Anytime any thing is simplified or distorted for the masses, the smarter, elite people will object to it.


It's a fact of life.

Anyway, hopefully Bioware doesn't completely destroy what they created in DAO in an effort to draw in the awesome/dudebro/badassery/Chuck Norris retards.


I'll finish up by saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Modifié par Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens, 18 août 2010 - 09:04 .

[Kalfear]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

RPG's are fiction - that's all they essentially are. Their whole premise is to deliver a more immersive fictive experience than other game genres. What many mistake here as 'dumbing down' isn't that at all, it's what almost all creators of fiction aim for, and what Bioware seem to be aiming for - giving the creation universal themes. 

Those themes aren't up for a hell of a lot of interpretation. They've been the driving factors of fiction for millenia and revolve around 'human' elements: characterisation, story, character interaction, emotive content, plot and plot progression. Developers want to change RPG's because they've tended to be devoid of these human elements, and progression and interaction have come by horribly artificial mechanics. Plot and characters have been thin, linear and predictable so that players can move through them by contrived means involving skill and gear progression. Universal elements were arbitrary because they were relegated to mere fluff, so they  assumed the form of horrendous infodump and backstory because progression is not dependant enough on them. It is in fact too dependant on mechanics that are external to those elements.

...

The bottom line is right here: supporters of RPG legacy mechanics aren't actually objecting to 'dumbing down', what they're objecting to are developer attempts to make RPG's universally themed.

As such they represent little more than obstacles to creative development and evolution.

Interesting premise in the first paragraph.  I'd be able to accept it better if you presented as one possible element in Bioware's creative agenda.  I'm not convinced that their greatest concern is driving toward a more narrativist approach in their RPG's.  If you start taking apart most rules-heavy game systems (especially D&D and its derivatives) you just start noticing how redundant and inelegant the systems are.  I dunno, maybe the pros love layered rules systems that introduce an illusory complexity for it's own sake.  As an amateur, though, I go for the most aerodynamic way to achieve the same result.

I do suspect that many designers would like to feel more free to write their own games instead of rehash what's been standard for 36 years.  The problem is deciding how incremental to make the change.

3rd Edition D&D is a good example.  You can see that the designers straining at the old D&D rules, trying to make their own game.  But the financial risk of changing too much too soon made some changes prohibitive.  Bioware may not have exactly the same concerns, though.  There are only so many people interested in D&D, and tabletop RPG's are already a niche market.  If a new design bothers too many old-timers, they risk losing player base that won't be replaced.  If Bioware makes an RPG more accessible to more people, they stand to gain by expanding a player base.  If I lose 5000 customers and gain 20000, I'm doing all right.  There's also the chance that the 5000 disaffected customers may look at my new stuff and find that it's not so bad after all.

I don't think RPG legacy folks are objecting to a certain agenda or trying to keep better story-telling out of RPG's.  I think they see elements that they enjoy and associate with the RPG experience suddenly being treated as obsolete, and it's upsetting.  This is especially true when only so many companies are producing the kind of product they want.  We've all been there: sometimes you're watching the taillights recede in the distance, and sometimes you're riding in the car.

Please show me these new 20000 customers?
As it stands ME1 and DA:O both outsold ME2 in units sold.

So where this 20000 new customers to replace the lost 5000 customers?

Me thinks you getting your numbers mixed up!

So far its been 20000 lost for every 5000 gained!

[Tooneyman]

Haexpane wrote...

What BioWare wants.
What BioWare needs.
What BioWare wants.
What BioWare needs.
A Bearded Hawke to be there for them.
(What BioWare needs).
What BioWare needs.(Oh).
What BioWare wants.(Oh).
What BioWare needs.(yeah).
What BioWare wants.
Strength,Dexterity, and a Bad Ass.

What ever it does to make them happpyyy!

[DarkSpiral]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...
Put simply:

People are hating because Bioware is going in the direction of simplifying things for the masses.
Anytime any thing is simplified or distorted for the masses, the smarter, elite people will object to it.


It's a fact of life.

Anyway, hopefully Bioware doesn't completely destroy what they created in DAO in an effort to draw in the awesome/dudebro/badassery/Chuck Norris retards.


I'll finish up by saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Youa re assuming that the people ranting about this are all smart.  Or elite.  I'm sure they all want tyo BELIEVE they're both.  And some of the probably are smart.  Some of the smart ones might even also be elite.  But most of the vitriol I've seen is less intelligent discourse and more like a fanatic rant.

[shootist70]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

People are hating because Bioware is going in the direction of simplifying things for the masses.
Anytime any thing is simplified or distorted for the masses, the smarter, elite people will object to it.


It's a fact of life.

Anyway, hopefully Bioware doesn't completely destroy what they created in DAO in an effort to draw in the awesome/dudebro/badassery/Chuck Norris retards.


I'll finish up by saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

God almighty, I just countered that simplistic argument with that post - that was the point of it. It isn't about dumbing down, it's about making it relevant.

Here's a wild example for you, plucked from the top of my head: Most budding sci-fi writers tend to produce the same sort of garbage to begin with: Predictable, generic, dull plots and even duller characters - all hung on reams and reams of detail. They get their focus all wrong. They forget the prime elements that make any fiction universal. It doesn't matter how much work they put into the detail, you're still in the uncomfortable position of telling these poor guys that they have to rip out 90% of the garbage and work on the fundamental elements first. Because few people will ever want to read it otherwise.

Now, the point here is, that isn't 'dumbing it down', that's simply making it relevant to a general audience by way of universally accepted convention. Storytelling in RPG's has so far been almost incidental, the player could basically ignore it and just focus on collecting items and developing skills. Player progression has been mechanical and formulaic, and those are always the hallmarks of sucky fiction. Just like the ******-poor writer, the focus has been all wrong, and it's time the genre reevaluated its priorities.

As a fictive medium it has incredible potential,and a potentially vast audience, not just a niche one. After almost thirty years it's about time it started punching it's weight and stopped coming across like a hack writer.

Modifié par shootist70, 18 août 2010 - 10:21 .

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

shootist70 wrote...

God almighty, I just countered that simplistic argument with that post - that was the point of it. It isn't about dumbing down, it's about making it relevant.

Here's a wild example for you, plucked from the top of my head: Most budding sci-fi writers tend to produce the same sort of garbage to begin with: Predictable, generic, dull plots and even duller characters - all hung on reams and reams of detail. They get their focus all wrong. They forget the prime elements that make any fiction universal. It doesn't matter how much work they put into the detail, you're still in the uncomfortable position of telling these poor guys that they have to rip out 90% of the garbage and work on the fundamental elements first. Because few people will ever want to read it otherwise.

Now, the point here is, that isn't 'dumbing it down', that's simply making it relevant to a general audience by way of universally accepted convention. Storytelling in RPG's has so far been almost incidental, the player could basically ignore it and just focus on collecting items and developing skills. Player progression has been mechanical and formulaic, and those are always the hallmarks of sucky fiction. Just like the ******-poor writer, the focus has been all wrong, and it's time the genre reevaluated its priorities.



As a fictive medium it has incredible potential,and a potentially vast audience, not just a niche one. After almost thirty years it's about time it started punching it's weight and stopped coming across like a hack writer.

What I get from "making it relevant" is "making it for Mr. Average."


What they are gonna do is make this into an easy hack and slash game where you basically play out events of a script. There will be much less development gameplay in that there will be less spells/talents than before and you won't have much freedom in terms of creating your own character. 

We've already heard that they've simplified the dialogue. Now you don't go through the hassle of reading the text you want Hawke to say. If you want Hawke to be friendly, pick the smiley face. If you want him to be mean, pick the angry face. 

There will also be plenty of cut-scenes in which Hawke does various kinds of feats of awesomeness and badassery. 

It's going to be made for the average to below average intellect that likes to shoot stuff, hates reading, hates making their own choices and likes kick-ass ridiculous Die Hard 5 action.

DA2 is not being made for the people who liken Dragon Age to games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter.

It's being made for the people who think Halo is the greatest video game series ever and that's why the developers are stripping away some of the classic elements gamers usually (when they're not trolling this message board) associate with RPG games.


Making it relevant = Mainstreaming = Simplifying = Dumbing Down

You can't make RPGs relevant to the masses without turning them into action games and taking away some of the character-building/development aspects. The average person doesn't want to tinker with characters like you pretty much have to in games like Dragon Age Origins.

Modifié par Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens, 18 août 2010 - 08:29 .

[errant_knight]

It irks me that there can't be one--just one--title that can continue to be what DA started out to be. It did very well. Capture the big mass market with Mass Effect and whatever the next new thing will be. Jut leave me Dragon Age.... One freaking game in a market crammed with other things I couldn't be less interested in playing once if ever. Sigh.



Oh. Too late? Never mind. I'll just be over here crying into my map of Thedas.

[Haexpane]

Schneidend wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

Right, I'm sure that's exactly what they want...

Edit: Wait... do you have any recent BioWare games?

I actually have their latest programming abortions, Mass Effect 2 amd Dragon Age, right here! Look at these horrors. They have experience gains for killing monsters, level ups, customized skill progression, equipment with which to outfit your characters as you see fit, and a half-dozen novels' worth of dialogue between them. The presence of these things are PROOF that Bioware wants to remove these mechanics and concepts from all of their future games!

PROOF, I say!

Nope, ME2 does not have XP for killing nor equip for characters as you see fit.  But this is a DA2 board so ME2 not being an RPG is starting to become irrelevant.

[pprrff]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

What I get from "making it relevant" is "making it for Mr. Average."


What
they are gonna do is make this into an easy hack and slash game where
you basically play out events of a script. There will be much less
development gameplay in that there will be less spells/talents than
before and you won't have much freedom in terms of creating your own
character. 

We've already heard that they've simplified the
dialogue. Now you don't go through the hassle of reading the text you
want Hawke to say. If you want Hawke to be friendly, pick the smiley
face. If you want him to be mean, pick the angry face. 

There will also be plenty of cut-scenes in which Hawke does various kinds of feats of awesomeness and badassery. 

It's
going to be made for the average to below average intellect that likes
to shoot stuff, hates reading, hates making their own choices and likes
kick-ass ridiculous Die Hard 5 action.

DA2 is not being made for the people who liken Dragon Age to games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter.

It's
being made for the people who think Halo is the greatest video game
series ever and that's why the developers are stripping away some of
the classic elements gamers usually (when they're not trolling this
message board) associate with RPG games.


Making it relevant = Mainstreaming = Simplifying = Dumbing Down

You
can't make RPGs relevant to the masses without turning them into action
games and taking away some of the character-building/development
aspects. The average person doesn't want to tinker with characters like
you pretty much have to in games like Dragon Age Origins.

Do we really have to be so disdainful of the 'masses'? They are people too you know, albeit they may not be the super-intelligent off-springs of the rpg-master race who spend 5 hours on the character creator, and they don't plan out boss battles in such tactical brilliance that shames Patton.

We should just throw them a bone and let them have DA2.

Modifié par pprrff, 18 août 2010 - 09:01 .

[Heimdall]

It boggles my mind that some think any company would deliberately make a game that they knew wouldn't appeal to a larger audience, it just doesn't make one lick of business sense.



I'm tired of all the elitist "dumbed down" claims. Yes the game is changing to appeal to a wider audience. The assumption that makes all users of the phrase "dumbed down" look like pompous elitist asses to me, is that the entirety of that larger audience is stupider and somehow lesser than themselves. Sure, there likely is a group that fits that description but to assume that a game needs to be stripped any possibly complex quality to appeal to more people is incredibly presumptuous and arrogant



/rant



Sorry this bothers me a lot

[Heimdall]

Haexpane wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

Right, I'm sure that's exactly what they want...

Edit: Wait... do you have any recent BioWare games?

I actually have their latest programming abortions, Mass Effect 2 amd Dragon Age, right here! Look at these horrors. They have experience gains for killing monsters, level ups, customized skill progression, equipment with which to outfit your characters as you see fit, and a half-dozen novels' worth of dialogue between them. The presence of these things are PROOF that Bioware wants to remove these mechanics and concepts from all of their future games!

PROOF, I say!

Nope, ME2 does not have XP for killing nor equip for characters as you see fit.  But this is a DA2 board so ME2 not being an RPG is starting to become irrelevant.

Yes it does

[Haexpane]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

Right, I'm sure that's exactly what they want...

Edit: Wait... do you have any recent BioWare games?

I actually have their latest programming abortions, Mass Effect 2 amd Dragon Age, right here! Look at these horrors. They have experience gains for killing monsters, level ups, customized skill progression, equipment with which to outfit your characters as you see fit, and a half-dozen novels' worth of dialogue between them. The presence of these things are PROOF that Bioware wants to remove these mechanics and concepts from all of their future games!

PROOF, I say!

Nope, ME2 does not have XP for killing nor equip for characters as you see fit.  But this is a DA2 board so ME2 not being an RPG is starting to become irrelevant.

Yes it does

/pops in ME2 disc
/confirms - nope it doesn't

[Heimdall]

Haexpane wrote...


/pops in ME2 disc
/confirms - nope it doesn't

Oh, you must mean for non Shepard characters

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

Lord Aesir wrote...

It boggles my mind that some think any company would deliberately make a game that they knew wouldn't appeal to a larger audience, it just doesn't make one lick of business sense.

This is true, but it doesn't bode well for Dragon Age: Origins fans.

I'm tired of all the elitist "dumbed down" claims. Yes the game is changing to appeal to a wider audience. The assumption that makes all users of the phrase "dumbed down" look like pompous elitist asses to me, is that the entirety of that larger audience is stupider and somehow lesser than themselves. Sure, there likely is a group that fits that description but to assume that a game needs to be stripped any possibly complex quality to appeal to more people is incredibly presumptuous and arrogant

/rant

Sorry this bothers me a lot

What's also true is that the games DO need to be stripped of complexity to appeal to more people.

There is an entire market consisting of people who like simple games: The casual gamer market.


There is also a HUGE market consisting of people that just like to kill stuff, and the developers will strip away the character-building and strategy aspects of the Dragon Age franchise in order to appeal to these people and get more people to purchase the game.

There is no such thing as being "elitist." Simplification just doesn't appeal to certain people and there already is plenty of other games where the character is made for you and you just run around mashing A and X. Some people just prefer that Dragon Age be left out of that group of games and stick to it's RPG format.

Modifié par Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens, 18 août 2010 - 09:19 .

[Kalfear]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

God almighty, I just countered that simplistic argument with that post - that was the point of it. It isn't about dumbing down, it's about making it relevant.

Here's a wild example for you, plucked from the top of my head: Most budding sci-fi writers tend to produce the same sort of garbage to begin with: Predictable, generic, dull plots and even duller characters - all hung on reams and reams of detail. They get their focus all wrong. They forget the prime elements that make any fiction universal. It doesn't matter how much work they put into the detail, you're still in the uncomfortable position of telling these poor guys that they have to rip out 90% of the garbage and work on the fundamental elements first. Because few people will ever want to read it otherwise.

Now, the point here is, that isn't 'dumbing it down', that's simply making it relevant to a general audience by way of universally accepted convention. Storytelling in RPG's has so far been almost incidental, the player could basically ignore it and just focus on collecting items and developing skills. Player progression has been mechanical and formulaic, and those are always the hallmarks of sucky fiction. Just like the ******-poor writer, the focus has been all wrong, and it's time the genre reevaluated its priorities.



As a fictive medium it has incredible potential,and a potentially vast audience, not just a niche one. After almost thirty years it's about time it started punching it's weight and stopped coming across like a hack writer.

What I get from "making it relevant" is "making it for Mr. Average."


What they are gonna do is make this into an easy hack and slash game where you basically play out events of a script. There will be much less development gameplay in that there will be less spells/talents than before and you won't have much freedom in terms of creating your own character. 

We've already heard that they've simplified the dialogue. Now you don't go through the hassle of reading the text you want Hawke to say. If you want Hawke to be friendly, pick the smiley face. If you want him to be mean, pick the angry face. 

There will also be plenty of cut-scenes in which Hawke does various kinds of feats of awesomeness and badassery. 

It's going to be made for the average to below average intellect that likes to shoot stuff, hates reading, hates making their own choices and likes kick-ass ridiculous Die Hard 5 action.

DA2 is not being made for the people who liken Dragon Age to games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter.

It's being made for the people who think Halo is the greatest video game series ever and that's why the developers are stripping away some of the classic elements gamers usually (when they're not trolling this message board) associate with RPG games.


Making it relevant = Mainstreaming = Simplifying = Dumbing Down

You can't make RPGs relevant to the masses without turning them into action games and taking away some of the character-building/development aspects. The average person doesn't want to tinker with characters like you pretty much have to in games like Dragon Age Origins.

Excellent post Lawrence, excellent

And its refreshing to hear im not the only one who thinks the interaction by some Bioware devs/writers has been boarderline trolling in nature!

Truth be told, im finding the whole attitude by Bioware to be rather insulting and childish in nature on many occations reading this forum.

Its one thing to change stuff but something totally different to insult and belittle those that dare not like the changes and openly question them.

Said it before, say it again, Im not likeing this NEW post EA takeover Bioware. To much ego, not enough substance for my taste.

[Nohvarr]

Kalfear wrote...

Please show me these new 20000 customers?
As it stands ME1 and DA:O both outsold ME2 in units sold.

So where this 20000 new customers to replace the lost 5000 customers?

Me thinks you getting your numbers mixed up!

So far its been 20000 lost for every 5000 gained!

I'm calling BS on ME 1 outselling ME 2. So Kalfear, post a link to the numbers that show your statement to be true.