248 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

slimgrin wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

 I love manuals and the lack is one of the reason why I stopped playing PC games,

 

You have got to be kidding. You forgo an entire platform due to a dearth of printed manuals?

Holy crap.

Yes, and because of paper boxes and the lack of Jewel Cases.  Games just got shuffled out cheaply and it offended me.

Granted now I purchase them online and download them, guess I'm not really a man of principle in the way of convenience. 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

Well said but you hopefully got the jist of where I was going with that. I have Zero issue with them making the console version play to the console's strengths. I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it.  

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

[Meltemph]

 it offended me.

Are you being serious?  It literally offended you or were you exaggerating for effect?

[Onyx Jaguar]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

Well said but you hopefully got the jist of where I was going with that. I have Zero issue with them making the console version play to the console's strengths. I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it.  

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

Well back in the 80s developers (because games were somewhat both easier to produce but more of a pain in the ass to make) would tailor games to platforms based on their strengths.  The best version of Maniac Mansion was on the PC, but the NES version is perfectly playable and has some advantages over other versions.  This would go on with other competing computer systems pre-monopoly.

But in the 90s it just becamse about the quick and easy port going in both ways.  Sure you'd have something like GTA 3, but then you'd get something ironically like GTA 4.

The hope here is that Bioware/EA isn't lying about tailoring for both sides as many companies usually do lie.

[Leonia]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

QFE.

I played a small indie-game MMO for awhile called Fallen Earth that was a total nightmare to play because it required one to push TOO many buttons on their keyboards (and most of the effective PVPers all used those fancy gaming keyboards with macro buttons). I also played a small indie MMO called Darkfall that basically was "use two buttons for combat" and it was so much more managable. There are heaps of different combinations for buttons and interfaces, simply having "more things to divide your attention amongst while in combat" doesn't necessarily make that kind of combat system robust or particularly fun.  

Modifié par leonia42, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:35 .

[slimgrin]

I like manuals as much as the next guy, but I'm with Onyx when he says they have become obsolete. Tutorials just make more sense.

Strategy guides help you dig deep if you want to.

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:37 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Meltemph wrote...

 it offended me.

Are you being serious?  It literally offended you or were you exaggerating for effect?

I am being serious.

For instance I buy KOTOR on the Xbox, it came with a manual and a hardcover case to protect it.  But in the time period I am referring to if I bought it on PC it would not come with a manual and often would just be in a "protective sleeve".  Which is ironic because when I bought MDK 2 in its "Protective sleeve" the ****ing thing was broken.  After that and when many PC developers jumped ship I did not see the point in sticking with the platform as the biggest problem I have with PC games is the fact that "they do not work properly" out of the box.  The cheapness of the publisher in handing out these games was the tipping point that made me switch allegience.

Ironically because of Bioware games, Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights and MDK 2.  No manuals, just paper boxes with "Protective Sleeves".  At least Blizzard would give you CD cases with manuals in their editions.  

To me now this was the mid 2000's I would be more into PC games now if I felt like upgrading my Computer, PC games just felt like they were disposable assets.  I would get a CD install it on my computer and the CD was worthless.  Kind of what has happened with music in a way.   But as a purist I do not like that.  Especially when comparitvely I can safely assume my copy of KOTOR 1 will work on my XBox, it might be really buggy but it will work.  But on PC I can assume it will work and that it will be buggy, but there is that chance that something random will happen in regards to my hardware that will make the game unable to play.

Without a 3rd party fix for instance I would not be able to play System Shock 2.  ANd to this day I cannot play the PC version of Giants: Citizen Kabuto even though my computer is a full cycle ahead of those games requirements way ahead (htough today it would be ancient).  This is incredibly beyond frustrating.  

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:43 .

[Meltemph]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

 it offended me.

Are you being serious?  It literally offended you or were you exaggerating for effect?

I am being serious.

For instance I buy KOTOR on the Xbox, it came with a manual and a hardcover case to protect it.  But in the time period I am referring to if I bought it on PC it would not come with a manual and often would just be in a "protective sleeve".  Which is ironic because when I bought MDK 2 in its "Protective sleeve" the ****ing thing was broken.  After that and when many PC developers jumped ship I did not see the point in sticking with the platform as the biggest problem I have with PC games is the fact that "they do not work properly" out of the box.  The cheapness of the publisher in handing out these games was the tipping point that made me switch allegience.

Ironically because of Bioware games, Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights and MDK 2.  No manuals, just paper boxes with "Protective Sleeves".  At least Blizzard would give you CD cases with manuals in their editions.  

I never ran into any problems with the games so I never found a reason to care.  As for "they did not properly work" I'm assuming you are talking about bugs...  Ya it gets annoying, but only if the game is bad enough does it really bother me.  And if I think it will be that bad, I just wait for a month or so.  I never read manuals for the longest time to be honest, never found a need since most mechanics are quite intuitive, so they were just something that was "there" to me.

I will admit though, I did read JRPG manuals when I was younger, but that was only to read the little spoiler/back story stuff about the characters.

 

[slimgrin]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

 it offended me.

Are you being serious?  It literally offended you or were you exaggerating for effect?

I am being serious.

For instance I buy KOTOR on the Xbox, it came with a manual and a hardcover case to protect it.  But in the time period I am referring to if I bought it on PC it would not come with a manual and often would just be in a "protective sleeve".  Which is ironic because when I bought MDK 2 in its "Protective sleeve" the ****ing thing was broken.  After that and when many PC developers jumped ship I did not see the point in sticking with the platform as the biggest problem I have with PC games is the fact that "they do not work properly" out of the box.  The cheapness of the publisher in handing out these games was the tipping point that made me switch allegience.

Ironically because of Bioware games, Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights and MDK 2.  No manuals, just paper boxes with "Protective Sleeves".  At least Blizzard would give you CD cases with manuals in their editions.  

Sorry Jaguar I'm going to tell it like it is: you're nitpicking, for no good reason. The only legitimate claim I can read in to what you're describing is the fact some pc games don't play straight out of the box due to different os requirements. But there is usually a way around that.

As for quality, I used to play on console years ago and the quality is no different. It's a physical hard copy subject to the same hazards as that for a console. This is truly a trivial reason to write off pc games...but I'll leave it be.
 

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
And I'll say it again, there's nothing wrong with finding a MIDDLE GROUND on game features/functions/systems, so everyone can have something they enjoy. Its when they decide to strip out half of what I enjoyed in Origins, companion gear, realistic looking animations and attack speeds, darker artwork considering the story is well dark, then it becomes a problem in that the only portion of the fanbase that is being heard is the console users. 

Or DA2 is the middle ground. How do we determine where that middle ground is?

[Piecake]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

Well said but you hopefully got the jist of where I was going with that. I have Zero issue with them making the console version play to the console's strengths. I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it.  

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

Fair or right?  Its a design choice, and a choice that i think makes sense for bioware games, because bioware has always stressed story.  And i don't think you are being honest with yourself if you dont recognize the benefits of having character specific costumes.  Personally, I am glad they are making that change because I was one of those people who never took morrigan out of her beginning robes, and it just felt extremely odd/wrong seeing leliana in some cheap, plain leather armor that I felt didnt fit her character at all.  Besides unique outfits "fitting" the character, unique character animations and body types is also another added benefit, which i think is a huge plus.  I think itll help a ton with story immersion and open up new possibilities in how they do story scenes.  Not to mention having Wynne rocking a slim, hot body was just extremely odd and slightly disturbing to me. 

Plus, there is always rings necklaces and what not to freely customize, not to mention that you can add runes and what not to change up your companions gear.  I do hope they upgrade and change their outfits in between the time jumps because seeing the companions in the same looking outfit over a 10 year time period would be extremely odd and jarring ot me as well

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

Well said but you hopefully got the jist of where I was going with that. I have Zero issue with them making the console version play to the console's strengths. I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it.  

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

I don't think a lot of those things can be blamed on casual players, though. Like companion customization, for example. Their biggest reasons for that change were things like visual fidelity, characterization, etc. Things that are common to casual and hardcore players alike. I don't think they've ever said anything about it being too hard for casual players to grasp or anything like that.

Some changes they just make because they feel it will make for a better game. Many of those changes also happen to make the learning curve a little less steep, which makes sense because a steep learning curve isn't better in any objective sense. The fact that it works in favor of casuals much of the time is an indirect result of wanting to make the game better by improving the game's accessibility. It's not because casual players have somehow become their sole focus and they would do anything to get their money.

They want to make a better game so that they'll sell more copies. Part of making it a better game is making it more approachable for new or casual players. But I think somewhere along the line the part about making a better game is being removed from the equation, and people are just seeing "they want more money, and they are making it more user-friendly, therefore they are selling out to the casual market."

[Meltemph]

just because casuals can't be bothered with it.

Don't think that has anything to do with what is being taken out. It probably has more to do with the bigger market not worried about the things you are talking about, at least near as much as the things they are focusing on. So, they prioritize and the things you are more attached to is taking a back seat.

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

I think my sig would apply to this...

[raven_corrino]

You know, after seeing the demos of DA2 via youtube and watching how your main character zips around the battlefield so quickly, doesn't matter if you're warrior or rogue, makes me feel like I'm watching Kratos in God of War. The way Hawke even jumps up to chop down on a hurlock with his 2-handed blade (in the demo, not in the trailer) really reminds me of Kratos. Seeing how fast paced combat is going to be, I'm kinda starting to love this game more than DAO (pre-ordered my copy long ago). Even Bethany held her mage staff like a spear. All the mages in DAO held their staff at a slightly horizontal angle, so it was a surprise to see Bethany with a completely different stance. With all these jumping around, it looks like DA2 will be more fun playing on a console, though I'll still stick with the PC version and see how it's like.

[Onyx Jaguar]

slimgrin wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

 it offended me.

Are you being serious?  It literally offended you or were you exaggerating for effect?

I am being serious.

For instance I buy KOTOR on the Xbox, it came with a manual and a hardcover case to protect it.  But in the time period I am referring to if I bought it on PC it would not come with a manual and often would just be in a "protective sleeve".  Which is ironic because when I bought MDK 2 in its "Protective sleeve" the ****ing thing was broken.  After that and when many PC developers jumped ship I did not see the point in sticking with the platform as the biggest problem I have with PC games is the fact that "they do not work properly" out of the box.  The cheapness of the publisher in handing out these games was the tipping point that made me switch allegience.

Ironically because of Bioware games, Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights and MDK 2.  No manuals, just paper boxes with "Protective Sleeves".  At least Blizzard would give you CD cases with manuals in their editions.  

Sorry Jaguar I'm going to tell it like it is: you're nitpicking, for no good reason. The only legitimate claim I can read in to what you're describing is the fact some pc games don't play straight out of the box due to different os requirements. But there is usually a way around that.

As for quality, I used to play on console years ago and the quality is no different. It's a physical hard copy subject to the same hazards as that for a console. This is truly a trivial reason to write off pc games...but I'll leave it be.
 

Listen I'd rather, now this was the past.  When I purchased a game the disc was intact and did not require babysitting and because most of the time these games were cross platform and many of these games the advantages to either version were minimal so it was an easy decision for me.  I mean I coudl give examples, Splinter Cell for PC and Xbox, PC looks better but has weird issues that are not in the Xbox version.  Outside of that it comes down to a purely control preference.  And when you have two products to me that are essentially the same and are around the same price the packaging makes a difference.  

Today its fine though< i but the Witcher and it comes Hardcased with a ton of extras.  This is good.  Same for Half-Life but you need steam for those and LOL an update to Source has made that game unplayable on my computer after playing it for 6 years thanks Valve...

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:55 .

[Fortlowe]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Buttons isn't relevant, most PC games I have played all you need is a Mouse and two buttons. Its the design relevant to the interface given that is important.

Well said but you hopefully got the jist of where I was going with that. I have Zero issue with them making the console version play to the console's strengths. I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it.  

It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

Do you mean the toolset? No the console doesn't have the toolset, but it didn't have it in DA:O either so I don't see how that relates. And again, Jinstar you are a casual gamer, so stop throwing that term around like it's an insult.

If you mean the armor customizations, though, well my understanding is that the armor customization system was the same between PC and console. With that being the case both consoles and PC's are at a loss. Not that I don't support the new approach, but blaming the console version for that change is folly.

[upsettingshorts]

The Director wrote...

So where did you stand on the idea of Tier-based armor ratings? Did that correlate around the same system as a more simplified star-based system would? Did putting bonuses in green and restrictions in red help at all? Just a question; I don't to accidentally sound confrontational. [Sorry, I get that a lot]

I do so miss the days when we would read the booklets to understand our new games. Reading was fun...

I'm not sure.  I've been playing CRPGs for a long time and I didn't need the same introduction to the genre.  But in general as long as the introductory/accessibility elements don't take away from the ultimate level of complexity I can't imagine having an issue.

And yeah, I remember the huge manuals too.  They were great.  Do I think we need to go back to that?  Not really.  But did it annoy me that I had to search online for all the Isomotion moves in NBA 2k11 because the manual was so spartan (it was two pages for crying out loud) that it didn't bother to include them.  Hell yes.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I don't see whats so wrong about reading a game manual to learn how to play a game that isn't just say a simple first person shooter for example.

Shooters aren't simple anymore.  There's plenty to know and learn.  But In Exile more or less said what I would have said anyway.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So you read the manual and you get to understand whats going on. I don't really see much of an issue in that. Like I said, theres a middle ground, the issue is Bioware appears to want to cater more to the casuals than the hardcore RPG'ers, and that to me quite frankly is extremely disappointing.

My contention is that it's entirely possible for "casuals" and "hardcore" players to get a game they both like.  Does that mean all casual gamers and all hardcore gamers are going to get the game they want with DA:2?  Nope, I think that's probably impossible.  But plenty of both of them will.  There is no one definition of what a "hardcore CRPG gamer" likes, just as there is no one definition of what a "casual gamer" likes.  

SirOccam wrote...

AngryPants brought up Flight Simulators earlier; I think that's a great example. I love the idea of a flight sim, and had wanted to buy one for a long time when I actually tried a demo. I chose a plane, and the next thing I know, it's just me and a huge, confusing-ass control panel. I was like "WTF am I supposed to do now?" I tried sifting through the help menus, but it wasn't long before I had lost all enthusiasm for the prospect.

Now what would be so wrong if they offered an optional simplified control scheme, where I didn't practically have to have a pilot's license in order to know how to make the damn thing take off?

A lot of flying games did just that actually.  Not all of them, though.  I first got into the genre playing Red Baron, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, and Strike Commander.  Not exactly examples of hardcore realism.  But I learned the basics.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

 And I'll say it again, there's nothing wrong with finding a MIDDLE GROUND on game features/functions/systems, so everyone can have something they enjoy. Its when they decide to strip out half of what I enjoyed in Origins, companion gear, realistic looking animations and attack speeds, darker artwork considering the story is well dark, then it becomes a problem in that the only portion of the fanbase that is being heard is the console users.

That's not a hardcore/casual divide.  It just means they've made design decisions you don't like.  That does not mean that anyone who must like the decisions has to be the "opposite" kind of gamer to your PC/hardcore label.  There are gamers in general who do prefer the direction DA:2 is going in that aren't your notion of console/casual gamers.  Some of the most "hardcore" gamers I know play console games exclusively.  

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I just hate the idea of sacraficing alot of things that I enjoy, like companion customization just because casuals can't be bothered with it. 
It hardly seems fair or right, to punish one portion of the fanbase for the other.

You're assuming this based on facts not in evidence.  They wanted their characters to be more distinct and sacrificed customization.  They didn'd do it because "figuring out what to put your companions in is hard!"

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:01 .

[Dave of Canada]

I guess if I like the changes I must be a casual.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

Actually, outside of this forum I use the term "casual gamer" to refer to someone who only likes an extremely limited number of game genres, and/or only buys and plays AAA titles. A "hardcore" gamer is someone who thoroughly plays a game over the course of a short time period (like a week) before moving on to the next game, and there's always a next game.

But everyone else here says it's about some abstract level of dedication to understanding of a games complexities, so maybe my definition has always been wrong.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[Piecake]

Apples - hardcore and awesome

Oranges - Casual and stupid

[Onyx Jaguar]

Originally the term Casual gamer was suppose to denote those who liked games that were simple and easy to manipulate, however the types of games these were are the likes of Bejeweled, Tetris, Peggle, Wii Sports and one way to know a game was not casual was if it operated with 3D movement because those games they would find difficult to control.



So in a way the "Casual" resergence was trying to hook in the casual while also trying to hook in the former hardcore of those who played games in the early 90s and 80s which were not complicated to play.



However then Casual started referring to "The really popular" for some reason

[nightcobra]

quick question for john epler regarding cinematics.

have you seen the machinima "Warden's fall" that depicts the last moments of kristoff's life?
if so, did it inspire you on how some cinematics could be done for DA2?

to make things easier i'll post the video, it really is amazing what they managed to accomplish and i'd love to see similar techniques on DA2 if it is possible.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:29 .

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

Hmmm not related to the current discussion, but the previewer said shortswords, I wonder if he ment daggers or that is a new weapon class? Also I wonder if rogues are going to be restrictied to shortsword/daggers, or they will be allowed to use standard longswords? I imagine they would retain longswords for rogues at least although I could see them taking away maces and axes.

[Fortlowe]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually, outside of this forum I use the term "casual gamer" to refer to someone who only likes an extremely limited number of game genres, and/or only buys and plays AAA titles. A "hardcore" gamer is someone who thoroughly plays a game over the course of a short time period (like a week) before moving on to the next game, and there's always a next game.

But everyone else here says it's about some abstract level of dedication to understanding of a games complexities, so maybe my definition has always been wrong.

I define a casual gamer as someone who isn't paid to play. I don't think there is such an animal as a 'hardcore gamer' because the amount of time one plays, the kinds of games one plays, the variety of games one plays, and the amount of games one has played  is both relative and subjective. For example, I may feel like I'm a hardcore gamer because I've been gaming for more the two decades. An SK Starcraft gamer may beg to differ with my opinion, because I only play a couple of hours at a time and maybe not even everyday.

I find it confusing how a 'casual gamer' can be determined as somehow less of a gamer than any other 'type' of gamer. DA was the first game I ever played that had statistics to keep track of. I still don't know how to calculate all those stats, and really don't care to beyond being able to tell what is more or less powerful and what strength counters another weakness.  But I've played though DA more than a dozen times, including all of the DLC. Do I then qualify as one of these supposed hardcore gamers, or does my lack of concern about the specific statiistics and how they are calculated disqualify me? I still call Zelda an RPG, because I started playing it when it was still called an RPG. Does that give me enough old school street cred to be one of these hardcore gamers? Or is my quaint refusal to lump Zelda into the 'action game' genre just because its combat mechanics happened to be better than most actual action games, hold me under the 'hardcore' bar? 

If being hardcore is concerning some profound understanding of the mechanics of a game, then what if I just read the guide without ever playing the game? Do I qualify as hardcore then.In theory,  I could, with enough study of the guide, debate the statistics of one item as opposed to another compitently.

The casual vs. hardcore argument is no argument at all. Everyone is casual. Just play the damn game.

[Piecake]

Fortlowe wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually, outside of this forum I use the term "casual gamer" to refer to someone who only likes an extremely limited number of game genres, and/or only buys and plays AAA titles. A "hardcore" gamer is someone who thoroughly plays a game over the course of a short time period (like a week) before moving on to the next game, and there's always a next game.

But everyone else here says it's about some abstract level of dedication to understanding of a games complexities, so maybe my definition has always been wrong.

I define a casual gamer as someone who isn't paid to play. I don't think there is such an animal as a 'hardcore gamer' because the amount of time one plays, the kinds of games one plays, the variety of games one plays, and the amount of games one has played  is both relative and subjective. For example, I may feel like I'm a hardcore gamer because I've been gaming for more the two decades. An SK Starcraft gamer may beg to differ with my opinion, because I only play a couple of hours at a time and maybe not even everyday.

I find it confusing how a 'casual gamer' can be determined as somehow less of a gamer than any other 'type' of gamer. DA was the first game I ever played that had statistics to keep track of. I still don't know how to calculate all those stats, and really don't care to beyond being able to tell what is more or less powerful and what strength counters another weakness.  But I've played though DA more than a dozen times, including all of the DLC. Do I then qualify as one of these supposed hardcore gamers, or does my lack of concern about the specific statiistics and how they are calculated disqualify me? I still call Zelda an RPG, because I started playing it when it was still called an RPG. Does that give me enough old school street cred to be one of these hardcore gamers? Or is my quaint refusal to lump Zelda into the 'action game' genre just because its combat mechanics happened to be better than most actual action games, hold me under the 'hardcore' bar? 

If being hardcore is concerning some profound understanding of the mechanics of a game, then what if I just read the guide without ever playing the game? Do I qualify as hardcore then.In theory,  I could, with enough study of the guide, debate the statistics of one item as opposed to another compitently.

The casual vs. hardcore argument is no argument at all. Everyone is casual. Just play the damn game.

Sorry, but you're clearly an orange

http://instantrimshot.com/