343 réponses à ce sujet

[Eiia]

@ fsfs. Excellent post, especially the gothic/arcania transformation is just plain sad. Another example is Splinter Cell. I hadn't really read any previews or anything on SC:Conviction, but still preordered it expecting it to be yet another great stealth-game, installed all excited to play etc. Imagine my suprise when I realised the game was just another shooter

Modifié par Eiia, 03 décembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People are reading way too far into the leaked console gameplay videos which allow the player to trigger basic attacks with button presses. 

It seems that way. Has the demo been showed on PC yet? I don't remember reading anything about it at least. So I'm not surprised that combat looks a bit different from DAO on PC. 

[Cloaking_Thane]

We could always add Quick Time Events and take out gameplay all together! (SWTFU im looking at you!)

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 03 décembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[AlanC9]

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...
The move away from AD&D simplified things, but there were bigger simplifications too - like the almost instant regeneration between battles. It was hard to go wrong because you could go in to every battle completely refreshed, all you had to do was wait 10 seconds or so. Unlike BG2 where I would be ambushed by a bunch of nasties, and then it prevented me from resting.. and I had to either risk pressing on half spent, or I had to back track to safety.

Actually, you were better off resting in place. BG2 random encounters were a conceptual deterrent rather than a serious threat. You could generally beat them with melee alone, and on the off chance you need spells, that's what scrolls are for. You end up with more XP and gold if you just do the REs. OTOH, fighting them is kind of boring.

Leaving aside the weak BG2 implementation, making the game about resource expenditure has positives and negatives. The positives you know. But if the player can't backtrack when his resources are critically low, he can find himself screwed a long way from a save point that can un-screw him. This isn't an issue in situations where the PCs have total initiative and free choice of combat duration; there's a reason why the standard D&D module is a party raiding an enemy complex pretty much at will. But it is an issue in situations where the PCs don't have the initiative. An escape situation, a time-pressure situation, a defense situation -- these will screw a player who guesses wrong about his rate of resource expenditure.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But it is an issue in situations where the PCs don't have the initiative. An escape situation, a time-pressure situation, a defense situation -- these will screw a player who guesses wrong about his rate of resource expenditure.

If the player is guessing, he deserves to be wrong.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Eiia wrote...

@ fsfs. Excellent post, especially the
gothic/arcania transformation is just plain sad. Another example is
Splinter Cell. I hadn't really read any previews or anything on
SC:Conviction, but still preordered it expecting it to be yet another
great stealth-game, installed all excited to play etc. Imagine my
suprise when I realised the game was just another shooter

Thank you, and yes it is sad.

The only bit of good news I can think of, is that the market forces that have created this situation, will also serve to  stop it from getting too far out of hand. It probably is already too far out of hand for some of us, but still. As games get dumber and dumber, it provides more opportunity for smaller companies to sneak in to an unfulfilled niche and provide a more challenging experience. Independent games companies are where it's at, for me now. They can afford to make games for a niche audience, because unlike the big dumb franchises, they don't need to spend millions licensing expensive music, voice acting, graphics engines, and advertising to the masses.

There is also hope for a revolution I suppose too. As unrealistic as it seems, it is possible. All it would take is one company to fully appreciate what the OP's movie talks about. They could make a really challenging game, but make it so well that it eases players in to it. Before you know it, millions of people are hooked on this amazing game and it could serve as a lesson to developers and the people who finance them. I think Portal 2 has that kind of potential actually, although I doubt that will be 'the one'. Be nice if it was though!

AlanC9 wrote...

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...
The move away from AD&D simplified things, but there were bigger simplifications too - like the almost instant regeneration between battles. It was hard to go wrong because you could go in to every battle completely refreshed, all you had to do was wait 10 seconds or so. Unlike BG2 where I would be ambushed by a bunch of nasties, and then it prevented me from resting.. and I had to either risk pressing on half spent, or I had to back track to safety.

Actually, you were better off resting in place. BG2 random encounters were a conceptual deterrent rather than a serious threat. You could generally beat them with melee alone, and on the off chance you need spells, that's what scrolls are for. You end up with more XP and gold if you just do the REs. OTOH, fighting them is kind of boring.

From what I can remember, you often weren't even given the option to rest in place. It gave you an "it's not safe here" message or something like that. So like I said, you either had to backtrack to safety (if that was even allowed), or you had to take the chance and move on with some of your spells used. It meant that these little encounters were a fairly serious threat, and they could weaken you for the big serious encounters. Unlike Dragon Age, your spells were not infinite. My Wizard/Sorcerer only has a certain number of 'big' spells, and then things got pretty tense, something that just never happened in DA. I could go in to *every* battle in DA with full mana, and therefore the ability to just AoE nuke the living hell out everything that dared come near me. I would also say that at least BG gave some reasons to use scrolls, it's more than can be said about DA.

The bottom line is that BG was just a more challenging game, I think that would be pretty hard to argue against. I could count my number of actual deaths in DA on one hand. I may have lost one of my squishier guys, but the others would go on to win the fight, and up pops my guy who should be dead. There were injuries (iirc) but even they were pretty meaningless, and most of the time were instantly healed by my healer's aura as soon as they stood up.

AlanC9 wrote...
Leaving aside the weak BG2 implementation, making the game about
resource expenditure has positives and negatives. The positives you
know. But if the player can't backtrack when his resources are
critically low, he can find himself screwed a long way from a save point
that can un-screw him. This isn't an issue in situations where the PCs
have total initiative and free choice of combat duration; there's a
reason why the standard D&D module is a party raiding an enemy
complex pretty much at will. But it is an issue in situations where the
PCs don't have the initiative. An escape situation, a time-pressure
situation, a defense situation -- these will screw a player who guesses
wrong about his rate of resource expenditure.

But what's wrong with failing? What you are basically saying is that because you could become screwed in BG, that was a bad thing. That basically just means you have a completely opposite philosophy on gaming to me. One of the main reasons why I hate modern gaming is that you just can't lose...  It's all so easy and dumbed down, and never being screwed is exactly one of the main reasons why that's the case. It's not like it ever ruined the game, you could save the game pretty much any time you wanted, so if you failed too far from a save, then it's your own fault. It's your own fault that you failed the battle, and it's your own fault that you forgot to save the game recently.

To me, if there is no chance of failing like that, then there is no challenge, no tension, no excitement. You are basically just playing an animated novel at that point. It's barely even interactive.

In BG2, it was a real challenge for me to finish the game because it was tough. In DA, the challenge was just staying awake and motivated long enough to finish it. 

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 03 décembre 2010 - 10:48 .

[Nighteye2]

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...
[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, and learning to master the game mechanics was part of the fun - whereas nowadays some people consider it a hassle.[/quote]
Yep.

And in some ways I sympathise with those people too. I've tried posting similar things on the Minecraft forum, and a few people argued that they have busy compicated lives and want some very simple entertainment to help them wind down, and I can't really argue with that. It's perfectly legitimate. Although, I think those people are exceptions, and as the OP's little movie explains, games could be more complex and challenging, and some good tutorials would ease people in to it. The guy used Portal as an example which was such a great example really, but there are lots of others. Even Bioware games ease the player in, somewhat. But yeah, I just wish games spent more time and creativity easing people in, and then built and built until it got more complex. I agree with him that games don't have to be simple, they could be complex and challenging but they need to have a really good learning curve. I think that is the key skill for a lot of companies to understand and to do well.
[/quote]
I wonder sometimes when that skill was lost...I never really managed to pinpoint it.
[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...
[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
In other words, those games had a good learning curve that never really reached a plateau. You could keep on learning and getting better with practice.[/quote] I suppose so. I think they probably did plateau at some point, but you were already well and truly hooked on the game by then. You didn't even really notice it.
[/quote]

If they plateau'd, people wouldn't be able to finish them. Instead, you keep getting further the more you play.

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Because the 'error' in trial and error gets seen as a flaw in the game, rather than a flaw in their chosen strategy.[/quote]
Good observation, I think that's right. A lot of modern gamers assume that if they become 'stuck', the game did something wrong. It's funny because I grew up playing games like Maniac Mansion (which still I've never finished), Monkey Island, etc.. I was stuck pretty much the entire time. There was no internet to just check out a walkthrough back then, so it was a constant struggle. I sometimes had to wait to the next day, go to school and ask some of my friends or older kids if they had got further. I remember there was one kid who was probably 3 or 4 years older than me and he always used to call me 'shortie'. But he had completed Police Quest 1-3 so I used to bug him for solutions sometimes and he used to take great pleasure in making me practically beg for his smart ass for assistance.

But that's just how gaming was back then, most of them were extremely tough, and that just made them even more addictive. It's not nice to be defeated by a challenge, so it just made people persistent. It also made it that bit more rewarding when you finally did overcome it.
[/quote]

So rewarding, even, that players voluntarily add to the challenge with artificial limitations. For example, I finishing Zelda 1 without picking up any rings, resulting in Zelda being clad in green. How many players have managed to see that?

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
A sad state of business, and one of the reasons while I still play old games (from the NES/SNES era) and before, if I can get them to run on my PC. They simply manage to provide more challenge than modern games, in a good way.
[/quote]
Yeah absolutely. I have a SNES, and PS1/PS2 emulator on my PC too. Even though I have a good PC that can play anything cranked, I still often end up playing old games, just because they were so good. Laughable graphics, but with gameplay that strong, it more than makes up for it.
[/quote]

Not to mention that with emulators you can play fan-translated games - that make you wonder why english versions were never officially released.

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Btw, companies can also go wrong the other way. 'Hard' mode on Metroid: Other M is a prime example of that. Simply having the same game as on normal but without any powerups only makes the game frustrating, rather than challenging.[/quote]
Yep I hate that. I always felt that about EverQuest. As much as I praise it for doing so many things right, and for being so challenging, it often went way too far with some things too. It ended up not being challenging, but rather just tedious and annoying. Forgetting to bind for example, and then you accidentally die and you have a 40 minute journey to get back to your corpse. Not cool. It's a balancing act, a very difficult one. They have to be challenging - but do-able. In the old days, I think that is largely what game design was all about, and they were masters of it. Even games made by one kid in his bedroom (Manic Miner etc..), they nailed this kind of thing. I sometimes still see that kind of old school talent, in games like Portal, where it really gets you thinking and you can get stumped, but eventually you can figure it out. But it's so rare that I see that these days. Like the OP's movie explains, it's easier and lazier to just make all games easy. They have mass appeal at that point. Games like WoW and Gears of War etc.. where you really can't fail at anything no matter what. With WoW you literally can't help but make constant progress, the only difference is that a good player makes progress faster than a bad player - but the bad player will still end up at maximum level eventually.
[/quote]

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, bad players getting experience even if they fail. It's one of the mechanisms to keep people playing - if a challenge is too hard, you have the option of becoming stronger by fighting enemies before trying the challenge again.

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...
Dragon Age wasn't the first phase - DA:O was a very good game, inspired on BG2. Wish I could say the same about DA2, but that's not looking so good thus far.
[/quote]
I think it was, although subtle. I actually enjoyed it too. But it's quite a big step away from BG2. The move away from AD&D simplified things, but there were bigger simplifications too - like the almost instant regeneration between battles. It was hard to go wrong because you could go in to every battle completely refreshed, all you had to do was wait 10 seconds or so. Unlike BG2 where I would be ambushed by a bunch of nasties, and then it prevented me from resting.. and I had to either risk pressing on half spent, or I had to back track to safety. Boss battles were far easier in DA too. I remember some of those BG2 dragons taking me a dozen attempts or more, and not only that, but it forced me to absolutely everything at my disposal, traps, everything. In DA I ended the game with 200+ gold having not spent anything, and an inventory full of potions that I never needed to use. Simplification of friendly fire too. It's hard to lose a battle in DA2 when you could just have one caster use that oil on the ground, and another caster creative a gigantic firestorm on top of it. You can do that in almost every battle, and nothing comes out alive. In BG2, you would be ambushed by creatures that infiltrated your group almost immediately so you can't really use ANY area effect spells. And if you did, a fireball often would kill one of your party members outright, instantly, not just injure them slightly. And a dead party member was REALLY dead, not just lying down for a while. So half the time I ended up having to use little spells like enfeeblement and magic missiles and stuff.
[/quote]

The regeneration between battles wasn't a bad thing. It's more convenient than resting as frequently as I did in BG/BG2.

[quote]fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

It was simplified, but still managed to be pretty good. With further simplification in DA2 though... I'm predicting that it's basically just going to be a gory hack 'n slash. System Shock becomes Bioshock, perhaps inspired by the original but an empty shell in comparison with 10 times less depth. Morrowind becomes Oblivion. Prince of Persia becomes Sands of Time, where you just can't die, you just rewind the last few seconds. Tiberium Sun becomes modern C&C, which is a big dumb mutation of it's former self, no subterranean units, no stealth, no way to prevent your base from being explored, no secondary weeds to harvest, no more complex hand made maps - just a bunch of symmetrical multiplayer maps, Rainbow Six become Rainbow Six Vegas 2, no more brutal one shot deaths, no health bars, constant regeneration, just step behind a wall for a few seconds and you're good to go - even after being shot in the face. No more surprises, thanks to a large constantly active heartbeat sensor that shows you everything that is about to happen before it happens, no team planning stage etc.. Fallout becomes Fallout3, Civilization becomes Civilization Revolutions, Gothic becomes ArcaniA, Total Annihilation becomes SupCom 2. Baldur's Gate becomes Dragon Age 2.

It's totally predictable, and totally identifiable, totally sad. [/quote]

An unfortunate trend...

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Unfortunate yeah Only for some of us though, I suppose. I think the majority of people are perfectly happy with how things are now, which is why we are in this situation. And not only that but nobody sympathises with us. As the Bioware guy on page 2 shows, we just come across as hardcore elitist jerks and they are probably glad to see the back of us. Better to have a fanbase made up solely of people who are easily pleased and undemanding. 

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 04 décembre 2010 - 12:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

Honestly, the only thing that strikes me as "unfortunate" is the casual elitism those who prefer one system over another seem to think is not only justified, but actually compelling.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2010 - 12:25 .

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

It is justified. As I said before, it's time you get used to it. You took over our territory and now you want to oust us.

While we have to cope with games getting dumbed down, you have to cope with our criticism. Look on the bright side, you can escape it easier, you probably have a bunch of games that you love and could go and play right now. I'm down to maybe 2 or 3 of those a year.

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 04 décembre 2010 - 12:35 .

[Aumata]

Looks like you need to broaden you horizon then. Expand, play other games, just sticking to one genre is not going to get you anywhere.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Have you even read my posts?

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 04 décembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[Aumata]

I read all 14 pages, might have became uniform in my thought. If that the case, lower your standards you'll enjoy stuff more.

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Aumata wrote...

I read all 14 pages, might have became uniform in my thought. If that the case, lower your standards you'll enjoy stuff more.

In one post on the previous page I mentioned the following games from the following genres:


FPS:
MW2, Arma2, Gears of War, System Shock, Bioshock, Rainbow Six, Rainbow Six Vegas 2

TBS:
HOMM5, Civilization, Civilization Revolutions

RTS:
Tiberium Sun, modern C&C's (ie: all of them), Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander 2.

Space trading/combat/building:
X3 Terran Conflict

Arcade/Action games:
Need for Speed, Sands of Time.

Puzzle games:
World of Goo, Portal

Platform games:
Trine, Prince of Persia

Adventure gaming:
Police Quest, Maniac Mansion, Monkey Island

MMORPG:
EverQuest, WoW, Vanguard.  

RPG:
Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout, Fallout3, Gothic, ArcaniA, Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age 2.


Does that really sound like someone who needs a broader variety of games? As for the lower my standards thing.. heh good one. Maybe you should raise your standards? Oooh see what I did there?

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 04 décembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[Piecake]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Honestly, the only thing that strikes me as "unfortunate" is the casual elitism those who prefer one system over another seem to think is not only justified, but actually compelling.

I think self-indulgent wankering is a better description

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

Yeah well, that's what happens when there's so little real entertainment out there to indulge me. Thanks a lot for that.

[Piecake]

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

Yeah well, that's what happens when there's so little real entertainment out there to indulge me. Thanks a lot for that.

no problem

[In Exile]

fsfsfsfsfsfsf wrote...

Unfortunate yeah Only for some of us though, I suppose. I think the majority of people are perfectly happy with how things are now, which is why we are in this situation. And not only that but nobody sympathises with us. As the Bioware guy on page 2 shows, we just come across as hardcore elitist jerks and they are probably glad to see the back of us. Better to have a fanbase made up solely of people who are easily pleased and undemanding. 

Introspection would be good. There are quite specific reasons you (or the group you say you belong to) comes across poorly. Quite a lot of it having to do with (largely incorrect) claims about the relative intelligence of groups based on taste.

Modifié par In Exile, 04 décembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[John Epler]

Yeah, this thread has gone off the rails.



Feel free to restart a discussion about difficulty and depth in games without the silly arguments and broad generalizations.



Locking!