343 réponses à ce sujet

[Matchy Pointy]

I'm just going to stick my neck in here and say that I've loved every Bioware games since Baldur's Gate, and I couldn't be looking forward to DA2 more, and I'll leave any discussion of teh complexity and whatnot until i ahve actually played the game and now how it actually is.

[Vankraft]

The one thing I do NOT want is an easy game, I despise easy games, Origins was terribly guilty of this a lot of the time, for example the Archdemon, what a cakewalk I think I got that on my first attempt on nightmare.

[Nighteye2]

The Masked Rog wrote...
And that's a great feature of DA1. Complexity and depth ala carte, so to speak. If you wish to engage in a more tactical gameplay you can up the difficulty and employ more abilities and talents. If you just wish to experience the story, you can just hack away, lowering the difficulty. I don't think it is that bad a thing if DA2 makes the latter option more satisfying, while keeping the former.

If only they were keeping the former...

[upsettingshorts]

I've yet to read or hear anything that says they aren't, except this forum's versions of Chicken Little.

[RedRoo]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've yet to read or hear anything that says they aren't, except this forum's versions of Chicken Little.

The dialogue wheel is the prophecised coming of The Beast. Didn't you know? There can be six options available-- the six is undeniable.

[The Masked Rog]

Nighteye2 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...
And that's a great feature of DA1. Complexity and depth ala carte, so to speak. If you wish to engage in a more tactical gameplay you can up the difficulty and employ more abilities and talents. If you just wish to experience the story, you can just hack away, lowering the difficulty. I don't think it is that bad a thing if DA2 makes the latter option more satisfying, while keeping the former.

If only they were keeping the former...

Where aren't they? They have even improved it so now your actions take instant effect, instead of having you shuffle around, thus allowing for more precise battle planning. They have removed redundancies within spells. They have created cross class combos, allowing for tactical combos of classes. But of course, people prefer to overlook what they see of positive and keep whining. Fair enough.

[Nighteye2]

Less skills, sped-up combat animations, less choice on how to equip your companions - and how to develop them, given the less skills already mentioned, lack of top-down view, etc.

I heard plenty of things that speak against keeping the complexity and depth of DA:O. There may be some bit of it remaining, sure, but it won't be the same.

edit: Masked, actions having instant effect reduces tactical depth, as it takes away part of the planning. Move taking time to execute makes them harder to time right and gives enemies time to interrupt. They deliberately removed that tactical depth for cosmetic reasons.

Modifié par Nighteye2, 02 décembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Less skills

Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.

Nighteye2 wrote...

sped-up combat animations

Definitely nothing to do with tactical complexity.

Nighteye2 wrote...

less choice on how to equip your companions

Only visually, thus, having nothing to do with tactical complexity

Nighteye2 wrote...

and how to develop them

What?

Nighteye2 wrote...

lack of top-down view, etc.

Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.

Nighteye2 wrote...

edit: Masked, actions having instant effect reduces tactical depth, as it takes away part of the planning. Move taking time to execute makes them harder to time right and gives enemies time to interrupt. They deliberately removed that tactical depth for cosmetic reasons.

... I can't even parse this into a logical train of thought.  Walk me through how responsiveness reduces the necessity of planning, or reduces the need for a tactical approach.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 09:39 .

[The Masked Rog]

How is sped up combat animations bad for tactical combat? I really can't see why not shuffling around would be bad. Slow combat, however, is a really huge hit in the tactical aspect. Less skills is very good because now there are no redundanct abilities (5 ways to achieve the same effect? Ya right) and you can improve an ability, which adds another layer of complexity right there.



I could go on a debate about how godawful it was in Origins to have such a enormous amount of control over companions they didn't seem their own characters and how dumb it felt, but I'm not going there.

[Nighteye2]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Less skills[/quote]
Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.
[/quote]
Every skill less is a tactical option less - in just about every combat situation.
[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
sped-up combat animations[/quote]
Definitely nothing to do with tactical complexity.
[/quote]
I'll explain this one below.

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...


[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
less choice on how to equip your companions[/quote]
Only visually, thus, having nothing to do with tactical complexity
[/quote]
I wish it was only visually. Instead of having every armour in the game available to equip on each character, in multiple armour pieces, you now get limited to a single armour piece that is the only thing that NPC can equip - with some linear upgrades along the line. From more than 200 armour combinations to choose from in DA:O down to 1, how does that not influence tactical complexity?

Part of good tactics is bringing the right equipment. Knowing when to equip heavy armour for protection and when it's better to equip light armour for liberal skill use.

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...


[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
and how to develop them[/quote]
What?
[/quote]
You're no longer able to choose their class - and their class has less skill to choose from.
[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...


[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
lack of top-down view, etc.[/quote]
Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.
[/quote]
Not necessarily, but in this case it will. A lower camera puts a limit on complexity, because otherwise too many things would be happening off-screen and players would get frustrated about not being able to see it before getting killed by it. At least with top-down, you can have a lot of enemies attacking from many places at once without the player ever feeling not in control.

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...


[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
edit:
Masked, actions having instant effect reduces tactical depth, as it
takes away part of the planning. Move taking time to execute makes them
harder to time right and gives enemies time to interrupt. They
deliberately removed that tactical depth for cosmetic reasons.
[/quote]
...
I can't even parse this into a logical train of thought.  Walk me
through how responsiveness reduces the necessity of planning, or reduces
the need for a tactical approach.
[/quote]
[quote]The Masked Rog wrote...
How is sped up combat animations bad for tactical combat? I really can't see why not shuffling around would be bad. Slow combat, however, is a really huge hit in the tactical aspect. Less skills is very good because now there are no redundanct abilities (5 ways to achieve the same effect? Ya right) and you can improve an ability, which adds another layer of complexity right there.

I could go on a debate about how godawful it was in Origins to have such a enormous amount of control over companions they didn't seem their own characters and how dumb it felt, but I'm not going there.[/quote]
As I said, slow combat gives enemies chances to interrupt your attacks - and adds the complexity of positioning your characters in places where they'll be able to execute their skills without getting interrupted. It also makes distances non-trivial, so that you have to plan ahead whom to attack - even to the point of pre-emptively attacking some enemies instead of waiting until they start to act before switching targets to them.

Slow combat was one of the strong points of DA:O, but now they "fixed" it.

[The Masked Rog]

As I said, slow combat gives enemies chances to interrupt your attacks - and adds the complexity of positioning your characters in places where they'll be able to execute their skills without getting interrupted. It also makes distances non-trivial, so that you have to plan ahead whom to attack - even to the point of pre-emptively attacking some enemies instead of waiting until they start to act before switching targets to them.

Good news coming right up: Enemies can interrupt your actions, and can you. I already count three more layers of complexity. In fact, it was the speeding up that allowed, as in Origins you couldn't really bash a passing attacker, you now can, and he is stopped by the actual "impact" attribute of the attack.

[Ziggeh]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Every skill less is a tactical option less - in just about every combat situation.

A lot of the skills and spells in DA:O did roughly the same thing. Do some damage, hold someone for X seconds. It's possible they've removed some tactical options, but it's making assumptions to conclude that without evidence.

Nighteye2 wrote...

From more than 200 armour combinations to choose from in DA:O down to 1, how does that not influence tactical complexity?

One piece that's modifiable. Depending on to what extent, it could give you a good deal more options. Again, making assumptions to conclude one way or the other.

Nighteye2 wrote...

Not necessarily, but in this case it will. A lower camera puts a limit on complexity, because otherwise too many things would be happening off-screen and players would get frustrated about not being able to see it before getting killed by it.

If you know there may be mobs which you can't see (a point we're assuming, but at least it has basis), you have to account for that in your strategy: it increases tactical complexity. In a way I find deeply unpleasant, but they're not forced to keep mobs within your view.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 02 décembre 2010 - 10:58 .

[AlanC9]

I'll leave most of the heavy lifting to Upsettingshorts here

Nighteye2 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Less skills

Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.

Every skill less is a tactical option less - in just about every combat situation.

That really depends on the system. When skills are redundant or overlapping, more of them doesn't give me any more options, it just means I'm hitting a different button to do the same thing. There are an awful lot of DAO fights where my mage is just firing whichever single-target damage spell is out of cooldown now. This is not using different tactical options.

I wish it was only visually. Instead of having every armour in the game available to equip on each character, in multiple armour pieces, you now get limited to a single armour piece that is the only thing that NPC can equip - with some linear upgrades along the line. From more than 200 armour combinations to choose from in DA:O down to 1, how does that not influence tactical complexity?

That's overstated just a tad. Most of those combinations are not worth considering. Or is it your position that stupid tactical options are important to have, as some sort of noise element so players have to find their way to the good options?

Nighteye2 wrote...

You're no longer able to choose their class - and their class has less skill to choose from.

No longer? You were able to choose classes?

As I said, slow combat gives enemies chances to interrupt your attacks - and adds the complexity of positioning your characters in places where they'll be able to execute their skills without getting interrupted. It also makes distances non-trivial, so that you have to plan ahead whom to attack - even to the point of pre-emptively attacking some enemies instead of waiting until they start to act before switching targets to them.

Slow combat was one of the strong points of DA:O, but now they "fixed" it.

This is awfully confused. When all attacks are slower, you don't have an opportunity to interrupt an enemy's action except by chance. And the bolded part doesn't seem to make any sense at all. If the objection to faster combat is that you can't interrupt enemies' actions, then how can needing to attack enemies pre-emptively rather than waiting for them to start an action be a good thing? I thought you wanted to be able to try and interrupt their attacks.

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'll leave most of the heavy lifting to Upsettingshorts here

That's what you think.  I'm going to bed!  You said pretty much what I would say though, especially that bit in the beginning about how having a bunch of different spells with the same use doesn't actually mean tactical complexity, it means more ways to do the same thing, which results in tactical stagnation and using a particular, fixed approach as a crutch.  A reduction in redundancies calls for more tactics, not less, due to how cooldowns work.

Let's say I've got four stuns, a root, a snare, and a knockdown.  If stuns are the most effective, I'm simply going to spec into all four them, and my tactic will call for the enemy to be stunned at a certain point each time.  That's one tactic.

If I've got one stun, a root, a snare, and a knockown, I spec into all four.  If I stun the enemy, I can use my original tactic.  A root might also work, but it may not trigger the same bonuses depending on how the engine works, so maybe I'll need to apply a defense debuff or something.  Another option is a snare, but that only slows the enemy down, he's still coming, so on the chance that he might reach me and hit me, I might apply a damage debuff.  Maybe he's finally reached my character and all I've got left is a knockdown, so I use that.  Then in order to create some space, maybe I'll cast Haste on myself and run away, so by the time he gets up and gets back to me again, maybe that stun (my most effective crowd control) will be off cooldown again.  I wouldn't have had to bother with doing or even thinking of any of that if I could just take four stuns.

A hypothetical example, sure, but one that illustrates the idea that reduction in redundancy is not necessarily a reduction in complexity.  Limitation can result in ingenuity.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 11:26 .

[AlanC9]

The Masked Rog wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...
 Oblivion had the best char creation system I have ever seen

Except for blowing up game balance when you actually try to play a freely-designed character. Which isn't really a knock on Oblivion; that's just what happens in skill-based systems when a GM doesn't actively keep a lid on things.

Edit: that's what happens in complicated games with synergies, anyway. Games with relatively simple combat don't have that happen, but I don't think that's relevant to DA2.

Yep, I suppose some of the weirdest combos can go that way, but its the price you pay for flexibility. I can't really say I ran into trouble with my assassin-marksman-alchemist-illusionist or my paladin like chars. A extremely flexible set of difficulty options also help, I'd imagine.

I was thinking more about making the game too easy -- unless that would fit under your definition of trouble too.

Of course, you don't need free design to hit these issues. IIRC a couple of Morrowind default classes level up from Acrobatics skill. Gaining levels from a fast-increasing noncombat skill is a good way to start going backwards.

[The Masked Rog]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...
 Oblivion had the best char creation system I have ever seen

Except for blowing up game balance when you actually try to play a freely-designed character. Which isn't really a knock on Oblivion; that's just what happens in skill-based systems when a GM doesn't actively keep a lid on things.

Edit: that's what happens in complicated games with synergies, anyway. Games with relatively simple combat don't have that happen, but I don't think that's relevant to DA2.

Yep, I suppose some of the weirdest combos can go that way, but its the price you pay for flexibility. I can't really say I ran into trouble with my assassin-marksman-alchemist-illusionist or my paladin like chars. A extremely flexible set of difficulty options also help, I'd imagine.

I was thinking more about making the game too easy -- unless that would fit under your definition of trouble too.

Of course, you don't need free design to hit these issues. IIRC a couple of Morrowind default classes level up from Acrobatics skill. Gaining levels from a fast-increasing noncombat skill is a good way to start going backwards.

I meant to include "too easy" on the list of trouble I didn't run into. I did have the difficulty bar at 75% or so and didn't  find it particularly easy nor challenging. But a friend of mine rolled a couple of really overpowered mage-like chars. Don't know how he did it, but I don't think he lost a single hitpoint during the first portion of the game.

[Nighteye2]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

I'll leave most of the heavy lifting to Upsettingshorts here

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Less skills[/quote]
Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.
[/quote]
Every skill less is a tactical option less - in just about every combat situation.
[/quote]

That
really depends on the system. When skills are redundant or overlapping,
more of them doesn't give me any more options, it just means I'm
hitting a different button to do the same thing. There are an awful lot
of DAO fights where my mage is just firing whichever single-target
damage spell is out of cooldown now. This is not using different
tactical options.
[/quote]


Some may have overlapped, but not many. Different elements affect alements differently because enemies have different elemental resistances. Sure, you can ignore those resistances and stick to whatever spell is out of cooldown - but that is no more than bad tactics, not utilising your mage's full potential. You're much more effective if you pick the right element to use against each enemy - not just for the damage spells, but also other spell types like root and stun.

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]
I wish it was only visually. Instead
of having every armour in the game available to equip on each
character, in multiple armour pieces, you now get limited to a single
armour piece that is the only thing that NPC can equip - with some
linear upgrades along the line. From more than 200 armour combinations
to choose from in DA:O down to 1, how does that not influence tactical
complexity?[/quote]

That's overstated just a tad. Most of those
combinations are not worth considering. Or is it your position that
stupid tactical options are important to have, as some sort of noise
element so players have to find their way to the good options?
[/quote]



That is part of it. But also decisions like whether to wear a complete set, or use individual items with better stats but no set bonus.

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...


[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
You're no longer able to choose their class - and their class has less skill to choose from.
[/quote]
No longer? You were able to choose classes?
[/quote]



To an extent, yes. Not just 1 or 2 specialisations for each, but also just choosing which branch to focus on. Leliana, for example, could be trained as an archer or as a dual-wielding stealth assassin - or as a ranger. More fleixibility than Isabella, who's stuck being a swashbuckler with some very limited skills belonging to that class.

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...


[quote]
As
I said, slow combat gives enemies chances to interrupt your attacks -
and adds the complexity of positioning your characters in places where
they'll be able to execute their skills without getting interrupted. It
also makes distances non-trivial, so that you have to plan ahead whom to
attack - even to the point of pre-emptively attacking some enemies
instead of waiting until they start to act before switching targets to
them.

Slow combat was one of the strong points of DA:O, but now they "fixed" it. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie][/quote]

This
is awfully confused. When all attacks are slower, you don't have an
opportunity to interrupt an enemy's action except by chance. And the
bolded part doesn't seem to make any sense at all. If the objection to
faster combat is that you can't interrupt enemies' actions, then how can
needing to attack enemies pre-emptively rather than waiting for them to
start an action be a good thing? I thought you wanted to be able to try
and interrupt their attacks.
[/quote]

Take mages for example, with spells like blizzard or inferno. Or archers charging up for a scattershot. They have a clear window of opportunity to interrupt them, if your characters are close enough at the time. That's also the consideration for pre-emptive striking - going after the archers/mages before they even start using those abilities.

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
I'll leave most of the heavy lifting to Upsettingshorts here
[/quote]
That's what you think.  I'm going to bed!  You said pretty much what I would say though, especially that bit in the beginning about how having a bunch of different spells with the same use doesn't actually mean tactical complexity, it means more ways to do the same thing, which results in tactical stagnation and using a particular, fixed approach as a crutch.  A reduction in redundancies calls for more tactics, not less, due to how cooldowns work.

Let's say I've got four stuns, a root, a snare, and a knockdown.  If stuns are the most effective, I'm simply going to spec into all four them, and my tactic will call for the enemy to be stunned at a certain point each time.  That's one tactic.

If I've got one stun, a root, a snare, and a knockown, I spec into all four.  If I stun the enemy, I can use my original tactic.  A root might also work, but it may not trigger the same bonuses depending on how the engine works, so maybe I'll need to apply a defense debuff or something.  Another option is a snare, but that only slows the enemy down, he's still coming, so on the chance that he might reach me and hit me, I might apply a damage debuff.  Maybe he's finally reached my character and all I've got left is a knockdown, so I use that.  Then in order to create some space, maybe I'll cast Haste on myself and run away, so by the time he gets up and gets back to me again, maybe that stun (my most effective crowd control) will be off cooldown again.  I wouldn't have had to bother with doing or even thinking of any of that if I could just take four stuns.

A hypothetical example, sure, but one that illustrates the idea that reduction in redundancy is not necessarily a reduction in complexity.  Limitation can result in ingenuity.
[/quote]

You still have a bigger challenge if 3 of those 4 stuns have a small chance of working because they're the wrong element. Having only a single stun spell forces the game to make it effective against almost every enemy - instead of many enemies being resistant to one or more types of stun spells.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Less skills

Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity

The inability of warriors to use archery is a reduction in tactical ability. That they can now engage the enemy quickly isn't much of a substitute.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

lack of top-down view, etc.

Not necessarily a reduction in tactical complexity.

But very likely. The harder it is for me to see the entirety of the battlefield, the harder it is for me to understand and respond to the situation.

Moreover, the combat is going to be tested based on the available camera. If the PC camera is still in transition - and they've told us it is - and there's no free movement of the camera - and Mike has been ambiguous about this - then what camera angle is PC combat being designed and tested at?

[Meltemph]

]But very likely. The harder it is for me to see the entirety of the battlefield, the harder it is for me to understand and respond to the situation.

The top down in DAO was not an addition to tactics. The games battles were obviously not designed around the tactical camera, unless red rover is now considered tactically superior.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

This is a great thread and I registered just to respond to it.

It's funny because this thread is like a microcosmic example of the struggles of society as it evolves. It's strange though because usually with this kind of thing, it happens over a long time, and in a massive world. Here though, Bioware has appeared, and quite significantly changed (I won't say evolved), all in the space of just 15 years, and the fallout of this change is captured almost entirely in one thread. Anyway...

As good as this thread is, there is some gigantic irony here, in that the bright people who are trying to defend the idea of more complex and intelligent games, have been largely misunderstood by the not-so-bright people they have tried to address. It's also been made worse by some people who did more harm than good, just like the guy in the video from the OP explains. The thread has also been side tracked a lot by off topic discussions about things like animations which are completely irrelevant.

I'm wary of even replying because I wonder if after so many pages, anyone even follows this thread and takes it seriously. Although I'm also wary after seeing that a Bioware guy responded early on and massively missed the point and got all aggro about something he didn't even understand. That is very surprising actually, and worrying.

Mr Gaider, not only did you completely misunderstand what was being said, but you also replied/attacked the wrong person with your quote too. The person who quoted the IQ's was just kindly sharing official statistics (national?) to explain something, not make any revelatory points about anything. The previous person had said that Bioware is catering to the lowest common denominator in the gaming community. The assertion being that when aiming for mass acceptance and sales, you aim at the lowest common denominator. The person who quoted the IQ statistics was showing that the ACTUAL lowest common denominator people, only actually make up a small percentage of society. Obviously nobody caters to these people or they would go out of business. To get mass acceptance and sales, then you should aim at the largest IQ group (note: not highest IQ) in society, which according to statistics, is the group of people with "Average" IQ's. That is all the person was showing, and you can't argue with that, surely?

Smart gamers understand this absolutely perfectly. The understanding is that gaming companies are now aiming squarely at this average Joe portion of society. Games that are too easy or too difficult, too dumb, or too clever, will not sell well, because they will only be suited to statistically smaller groups of society. What most companies want, is to aim right in the middle. This is the mainstream mass market, and this is why 'average' media aimed at this portion of society sells so well. With books there is Harry Potter, with movies there is Titanic, and it's absolutely no mystery why these things sell so well. They are neither very dumb, nor very clever. They are absolutely average - by design. They are right in the middle, and right in the middle is where the money is. It's where the largest IQ group is, and this is not a coincidence, the largest IQ group by definition... is "average people". Average people consume average entertainment. This shouldn't even be debatable, and it's proven time and time again like I said, with games, movies and books, and even with music, food, tourism and other things too.  You make something like Baldur's Gate 2 today, and it just wont sell as well as the alternatives, like say, Oblivion for example.

The large, mainstream audience, wants average games - in terms of difficulty. That's not to say they are dumb and want easy games, but they aren't above average intelligence wanting hard games either.  It's a massive number of average people, wanting games that are distinctly average games in terms of challenge. It's for this reason that Oblivion is so basic, and yet so popular.

The reason why there is some outrage out there about the over-simplification and "dumbing down" of gaming, is because early in gaming history, games were more complex. I think this is another fact that can't be denied. Look at games of the 80's and 90's, and you see games like Betrayal at Krondor, Maniac Mansion, Elite, Rainbow Six, etc. First off, with the RPG's, they were mostly party based back then. That for a start, is something that has been simplified. Nowadays the popular RPG's out there just have one main character, whether it's Diablo, Gothic, Elder Scrolls, or Two Worlds franchises, that's how games have changed to become more basic, and these basic games sell more than anything. There is no party interaction anymore in these kinds of games, because there is no party. It's all about the one main character. The other things that have changed are the enormous open worlds with real time travel. That's how it was in Krondor, but now in Oblivion, you have a horse that can just outrun any danger you come across, and you can instant travel to any location you have visited. The list of simplifications is almost endless really. To me, the best and most defined examples of it are actually with MMORPG. Look at the 'evolution' from Ultima Online and the original EverQuest, to modern day World of Warcraft. It went from games were one single death could set you back an entire week and/or lose ALL of your gear, to games like WoW where dying is almost completely inconsequential. When you die, you respawn nearby at an altar, you are completely invisible, and completely invincible, and are delayed by around 1 minute. You also have spells with 100% efficiency, and dungeons that are 100% predictable. Not like EQ where a failed Lull or Feign Death pull could result in you being attacked by 10 enemies that killed your entire party in seconds. Or the only crowd control was the edge of the seat, highly risky black art of mezmerisation - which failed more than it even worked, and one wrong move by anyone, could wake up the mezmerised creature which would then be extremely angry... The modern equivalent is to turn the creature in to a completely harmless sheep - 100% success rate, no potential for failure, no risk, no way to accidentally break it, etc. There is no more food in these games too, there are bind stones now, flying mounts to take you from place to place without even needing to travel on foot, no spell fizzles, no spell resists, no heal aggro, often there are even no aggressive creatures in the world. It's just a big world full of creatures that are oblivious to your presence until you choose to attack them (like a glorified shooting gallery). At this point I usually go on to compare games like System Shock to games like Bioshock, but I think if I haven't made the point by now, I never will.

So anyway, we are a small minority. We used to be the majority... We were "gamers". We were the ones who bought games throughout the 80's and 90's and allowed gaming to grow in to what it is today. We are the ones who grew up appreciating that games were epic interactive visual and visceral challenges, made by people who took pleasure in providing extremely difficult challenges, sometimes even to the point of being overly obtuse and difficult, and us gamers took pleasure in proving our worth by beating these games. We rose to every challenge. Whether that was surviving to the end of Myth Drannor in Eye of The Beholder 2, or finally killing Shodan in System Shock, or saving all of our Lemmings, getting Larry laid, beating Mike Tyson, or saving the world in X-Com, we revelled in being challenged and if it was too hard for us, that just meant that we had to try harder.

The difference back then, is that we didn't need tutorials. ALL games were difficult, so if you found one game too hard (because you were too lazy or too dumb to figure out how to play it well), then you would have nothing to play at all. You were either up for the challenging of gaming, or you weren't. There was no in between. There was no Wii, Need 4 Speed, or anything else. You were going to be challenged no matter what. So we old school gamers were raised on figuring this stuff out for ourselves. Once you've died a thousand times in an RPG, you had learned everything you needed to know. So as games were released, we understood right away what we were meant to do. Today that doesn't happen. The world is a different place now. Today, if the average Joe gamer gets a game that they don't understand, they have no need to figure it out. They prefer to post about how gay it is and then get a different game. These modern gamers also haven't played these brutal old games, and they haven't learned the intricacies of the genres. With driving games, they don't know the importance of a good driving line. With RPG's, they don't know how fire elementals are likely to be immune to fire... With FPS's they don't know the importance of reloading before you burst in to save the hostages. Modern gamers haven't learned these lessons yet, and they will never force themselves to learn through trial and error either.

The video suggests that modern gamers are capable of understanding these kinds of things, they just need to be shown it. There needs to be tutorials to explain these things. Games can still be challenging and complex, but if the player knows what and how to approach it, then they will likely lap up the challenge rather than criticise it for being too hard. That is the perfect solution. Sadly, as the video explains, an easier alternative is to just remove all this stuff... Buy Need 4 Speed 2010 and you don't even need to know about a driving line, your car drives almost like it's on auto pilot. Buy Crysis and you don't need to remember to reload. It's not like the original Rainbow Six where one bullet could kill you and 1 second hesitation could mean a dead hostage and a failed mission. Instead you have a constantly regenerating health bar, and the ability to run away and go invisible any time you want. In Oblivion, you don't need to know about spell immunity, they just took that out, along with interrupts and party interaction etc.

I think at this point, a lot of old school gamers have just given up even trying to fight their case. I see their posts, and it's kind of comforting knowing there are still some out there playing games, but it's sad to see that they know they are defeated. We are the minority now, we've been outnumbered by the masses of Average Joe gamers who demand average games, and we aren't happy about that. Whenever you see someone complaining about dumbing down and simplification, you have to understand that it's our frustration at seeing this devolution of gaming. We know we are fighting a losing battle and that nobody cares about us anymore, but that doesn't mean that we can't express our frustration at you, and that some wont go down without a fight.

A lot of us also find it fun to poke fun at you. Yes it's elitist, but that's our prerogative! We ARE the elite... whether you like it or not. You can kick and scream and insult us back, but we don't really care. We are superior, but we are being hard done to, because of the masses of inferior gamers out there. If you don't like our snooty elitist posts, then it's tough quite frankly, you better get used to it, because looking down at the masses of dumb gamers is all we really have now. We have criticising you all, you have an endless supply of games to enjoy, it evens out.

The thing that brought me here today was watching the Bioware Development Manager talking about Dragon Age 2. She is very attractive by the way, and probably very intelligent too, and I'm sure a lovely person! But I have to say, I felt almost queasy hearing her speech, and I also couldn't help but wonder if her lack of smiles was indicative of her feeling numb inside, from having to stoop down where she went.

To be fair, it's quite impressive actually. A lot of you gaming companies have absolutely NAILED your target audience now. Long gone are the wild west days of gaming where nobody really knew anything. Now your figures and statistics and sharp eyes on your forums have defined your audience pretty well, presentations are now tailored perfectly to these audiences. With the recent WoW presentation I saw, the guy was just babbling on like a moron, talking about how he is happy, and his team is happy, and then he gets excited and then everyone gets excited. It was tailored perfectly for the typical 13 year old WoW player who gets SUPER EXCIIIIITEDDDDD! at pretty much everything. With Dragon Age 2, the lady hits me with "Press a button and something awesome happens" which is absolutely typical of modern gaming really. Gone are the Baldur's Gate days when you got regularly slaughtered by huge groups of enemies that ganked your healer/spell casters, or a single trap takes out your Ranger or whatever. Nowdays it's all about winning, and looking good doing it. It's all cinematic combat that looks good but involves no real thought, and no skill. Dragon Age was the first phase, and now Dragon Age 2 is phase two of that dumbing down process. We will now have a hotbar full of "buttons that do something awesome, dude", and combat will be little more than just pressing which AwEsOmE auto-pilot manoeuvre you want to perform. It's sad for me to think about all the mindless idiots playing this game and pressing the button, seeing the character leap in to the sky and spin around, and decapitate the enemy, and then they'll say to themselves DUDE! That woz FrEaKiN AWESOME DUDE SERIOUSLY! IM SERIOUSLY YOU GUYS OMG!!! Rather than thinking, "What the hell happened to player input, tactics and decision making?" Amongst other things.

I also noticed the, "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan" thing. Again, you nailed the audience. You've seen the countless super koool dudes on various forums who get all excited watching these flashy CGI trailers and expressing their excitement by shouting SPARTAAAAA!!!1!1 You see that happen often, and I can just picture the little light bulb light up next to the heads of the marketing department, as they realise that they can harness this lame 300/Spartan obsession to sell to these kinds of people. You guys have it sewn up. You'll be a big success and sell a lot, EA's favourite little pet. Dragon Age 2, the McChicken Sandwich of gaming.

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[Revan312]

Redundant skills =/= redundant tactics. If I wish, I can grab all the CC as a mage and make them just that, a secondary CC machine gun that is gimped in damage and survivability but can lockdown mobs.

I can grab all the stuns as a sword & boarder and concentrate on simply knocking down foes and keeping them from engaging my ranged members.

If you completely remove redundancy than you either need to reduce cooldowns to the point of nearly being pointless (Mass Effect 2?) or you reduce the ability to specialize into an area previously available. I won't comment on how much I hated the homogenized ME2 system of global power cooldowns but either way, tactical complexity is reduced..

After all, if I have a knife, a shard of glass and a piece of jagged metal, yes, when thrown they all do about the same thing, but I still have three things to throw.. With just a knife, I only have one..

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...
 You'll be a big success and sell a lot, EA's favourite little pet. Dragon Age 2, the McChicken Sandwich of gaming.

-> *walks out of thread for fear of the coming storm*

Modifié par Revan312, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:16 .

[Atakuma]

Good lord man get over yourself.

[Leonia]

I'm anti-shuffle-like-a-granny and pro-fight-like-a-spartan.



Feel free to tar and feather me for my beliefs.



Also, ya'll write some REALLY long posts. Is it really so hard to just say what your point is?

[soteria]

Faster, more responsive combat could actually make playing tactically a lot easier. Many times I would get frustrated in DA:O by the how slowly my characters would respond to orders--they just didn't keep up. The way the game would clear all commands after the beginning of combat was particularly offensive.

fsfsfs wrote...

...The reason why there is some outrage out there about the over-simplification and "dumbing down" of gaming, is because early in gaming history, games were more complex...

*looks at gorillas, nibbles, scorch, king's quest, and wolfenstein 3d*

*looks at modern warfare 2, rome total war, civilization v, and dragon age*

Lawl. Your facts are anything but.

[Leonia]

Hey you can't deny how complex Frogger was.. that was some hardcore gaming.