343 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

The key to me is that you can just make the roleplaying elements more accessible but instead many mainstream game companies just remove them. Bioware could have just made ME's inventory system, planet exploration and stats more accessible in ME2... give a better tutorial, work out a better interface, use better UI symbols... but instead they just removed all of it and made a shooter.



If DA2 is the same core game as DA:O but with a better console UI and such then yay, that's not too bad. If they remove RPG elements and make it more of a hack n' slash game though, well... that sucks.



Time will tell.

[hexaligned]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

After watching the video again...

You expecting a better tutorial or something like that?

As the video stated, 80% of a game could be tutorial. I assume the origin to the battle with the ogre in Origins was the tutorial.

relhart wrote...

All I got out of the video was that I needed to go find a ROM of Ogre Battle 64 so I can play it at work tomorrow. I disagreed with most of what was postulated in it though, I'm one of those people that actually enjoys number crunching different character/party builds and such.

What did you disagree with?

Well I agree with it from a marketing and sales point of view, which is to say they make some good points for making a successful game.  I just disagree with some points for selfish reasons.  I don't like games to be "approachable"  or to have tutorials.  I want to have my ass handed to me within the first few mins of playing, and the difficulty to just ramp up from there.  I want to have to mess around with the mechanics myself and figure them out without handholding.  I like my games to be puzzles in other words.  Convoluted sadistic puzzles.

[Malanek]

I wouldn't classify the origin and ostagar as a "tutorial". There was no special learning tool programmed in. Just because you are learning about the game doesn't make it a tutorial. You learn about the game right through from beginning to end, and then more on the next playthrough. And if you thought it was, why does it suddenly stop being a tutorial at that arbitrary point? The tutorials were those annoying help pop ups you can turn off.

[Wissenschaft]

Maria Caliban wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

Did you seriously create a thread for this?
Oh the anger.

Did you look at the video?

I mean, I thought it was an excellent example of what makes a game good. Why would you get angry at him for posting it?

Apollo Starflare wrote...

It's a good thing you were here to post this topic, one never discussed anywhere else on the forums!

I am apt to agree it's never discussed on this forum.

I agree with that video that a good game has a lot of gameplay depth but Dragon Age 2 looks to be adding a lot of depth by eliminating redundent talents and Talents that just boost stats and instead providing upgrades to the various active talents you can get. Even companions are getting unquie talents only they can recieve which gives abilites a player character can't recieve. This should add a lot to gameplay depth.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 23 novembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[Luigitornado]

Honestly I didn't start having fun with DA:O until my second play through.

[Loc'n'lol]

Lothering felt very much like a tutorial as well. Oh look, a board, it gives you quests. Oh I need <basic item X>, craft some for me and I'll pay you <disproportionately high amount of money>.

FellowerOfOdin wrote...



Expect it to be easier than Dragon Age : Origins as the game will be highly adjusted to mainstream gaming.

Didn't watch the video.

Beaner28 wrote...



If the game has issues with a lack of difficulty I will be extremely disappointed. I don't understand why BioWare feels they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in the gaming community. They already FPS and CoD. Why do they need RPGs?

Implying FPS players are somehow less intelligent than RPG players.

[Nighteye2]

relhart wrote...
Well I agree with it from a marketing and sales point of view, which is to say they make some good points for making a successful game.  I just disagree with some points for selfish reasons.  I don't like games to be "approachable"  or to have tutorials.  I want to have my ass handed to me within the first few mins of playing, and the difficulty to just ramp up from there.  I want to have to mess around with the mechanics myself and figure them out without handholding.  I like my games to be puzzles in other words.  Convoluted sadistic puzzles.

I like such puzzles, too. But in my experience the best games are easy to learn, yet deviously hard to master.

[Eldareus]

I consider the Baldur's gate series one of the best games I ever played. It had great depth and complexity along with an awesome story, interesting characters, NPCs, and great tactical battles which could be perform with different strategies. I played a couple of mods which expanded the gameplay as well as improve upon the enemy AI. It's my all time favorite game and I have not replayed any other game any where near the number of times I replayed Baldur's gate (well maybe Dues ex as well). Usually a game doesn't hold my interest long enough for me to even consider a replay once I complete it first time through. Baldur's gate had such a compelling game experience that I played both core games and both expansions over five times.



Bioware still crafts fantastic storys and fun games. I have as yet been disappointed by any game they produced so far. However, since EA acquisition I have notice the direction Bioware has been drifting too and from a pc gamer prespective it's pretty discouraging. The developer I admire and respected the most seems to be abandoning it traditional game design roots to produce the same repetitive game experience the game industry is pumping out in bulk now. How many more FPS, MMOs and simplistic action based RPGs does the market really need? When will other gamers grow tired of playing the same game mechanics that are repackage in a different settings.



I long for another Baldur's gate type game experience one that provides months and months of replay value due to it's depth and variety of choices the game offered the player.

[Sir JK]

Maria Caliban wrote...
...Would Origins, from the beginning of the origin to the battle with the ogre, have been better if there were certain sections that could only be passed by displaying specific tactics?

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

These are very gamey examples, but what if the developers identified five 'essential' tactical elements and only let someone progress to the main game after the player had demonstrated use of them?

I just wanted to say that I think these ideas are brilliant.

[Meltemph]

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

Sounds a lot like Grand Turismo licensing. I love it in the Gt series, not sure how it could work and make sense in a RPG like this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Would Origins, from the beginning of the origin to the battle with the ogre, have been better if there were certain sections that could only be passed by displaying specific tactics?

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

These are very gamey examples, but what if the developers identified five 'essential' tactical elements and only let someone progress to the main game after the player had demonstrated use of them?

Because I have observed there was a wide gap between people who got the basics of gameplay and those who didn't.

In the game proper these features would have been horrendous, but in the tutorial section (where the game can control thngs like party composition, as Ostagar does) these are a great ideas.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eldareus wrote...

However, since EA acquisition I have notice the direction Bioware has been drifting too and from a pc gamer prespective it's pretty discouraging. The developer I admire and respected the most seems to be abandoning it traditional game design roots to produce the same repetitive game experience the game industry is pumping out in bulk now. How many more FPS, MMOs and simplistic action based RPGs does the market really need?

Exactly two BioWare games have been released since the EA acqusition.  ME2, and DAO.

ME was developed and released prior to the acqusition, and was published by Microsoft (EA had nothing to do with it).

SWTOR's development began long before the EA acquisition, and again EA is not the publisher of that game.  The publishing agreement was signed with LucasArts prior to the EA acquisition, and as such EA won't be publishing that one, either.

Your thesis is based on shoddy data.

[Ortaya Alevli]

This Daniel guy in your video... Is he salarian?

I hope DA2 won't be the kind of game where you can do practically anything and still cannot lose. I know, sometimes I wanna be able to go wild and do anything the game has to offer, no strings attached, but that's what Casual is there for. Hopefully DA2's highest difficulty will indeed be, well, difficult. Not "mobs do triple damage" kind of difficult but "stretch the game tactics to their limits and try to find an appropriate solution instead of adhering to the MMO mentality everywhere you go" difficult.

[Qset]

Thanks for linking that video. It made some very good points and explained them well and I found the whole style very engaging



I agree that the Origin to Ostagar were the tutorial for DAO. I think there were some small aspects that could have been improved there - tiny things like giving Daveth level 1 lock picking for those non rogue PC's but overall it worked very well for me.

[David Gaider]

relhart wrote...

They aren't the lowest common denominator, they are average.


130+
Very superior
2.2%

120-129
Superior
6.7%

110-119
High average
16.1%

90-109
Average
50%

80-89
Low average
16.1%

70-79
Borderline
6.7%

Below 70
Extremely low
2.2%

IQ scores broken up by percentage of population. Obviously making a game that caters to people in the 90-120 range is going to appeal to the largest possible audience, (and presumably the highest sales) Mystery solved. DAO wasn't a hard game as it was, it certainly didn't have real strategic depth to it. I don't see DA2 as being much of a departure from that. (based on the little I have seen of it)  Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media being this way.

Seriously?

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

I have no opinion on where game difficulty ends up-- gameplay is not my bailiwick-- but if you ask me it's opinions like this from the hardcore that make developers not regret making games more accessible in the slightest.

[Lord_Valandil]

David Gaider wrote...
Seriously?

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

I have no opinion on where game difficulty ends up-- gameplay is not my bailiwick-- but if you ask me it's opinions like this from the hardcore that make developers not regret making games more accessible in the slightest.

Well said, Mr. Gaider.

[sarcasm] Elitists...gotta love 'em. [/sarcasm]

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 25 novembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[Shepard Lives]

David Gaider wrote...

Seriously?

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

I have no opinion on where game difficulty ends up-- gameplay is not my bailiwick-- but if you ask me it's opinions like this from the hardcore that make developers not regret making games more accessible in the slightest.

Gaider rides in to save the day. *fanfare*

[Semyaza82]

I'm with Dara O Briain on the issue of game difficulty

[Nighteye2]

Semyaza82 wrote...

I'm with Dara O Briain on the issue of game difficulty

It sounds great in theory, but if you've ever played around with cheat codes, you know it can get old really fast.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

relhart wrote...

They aren't the lowest common denominator, they are average.


130+
Very superior
2.2%

120-129
Superior
6.7%

110-119
High average
16.1%

90-109
Average
50%

80-89
Low average
16.1%

70-79
Borderline
6.7%

Below 70
Extremely low
2.2%

IQ scores broken up by percentage of population. Obviously making a game that caters to people in the 90-120 range is going to appeal to the largest possible audience, (and presumably the highest sales) Mystery solved. DAO wasn't a hard game as it was, it certainly didn't have real strategic depth to it. I don't see DA2 as being much of a departure from that. (based on the little I have seen of it)  Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media being this way.

Lemme guess. You took one of those online IQ test, right?

I have some friends who have been officially documented as being pretty smart (high LSAT scores). The most they  will play with me is simple multiplayer games like Wii Sports and Mario Kart (probably Xbox Kinect too when I get it). They consider hardcore games to be a waste of time and a means of detracting from their studies. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I assure you that 'lack of intelligence' isn't something which you should attribute to non-hardcore gamers. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about yourself, smart guy. I'm sure that when you find a game which caters to your unique intelligence and you manage to beat it, every employer will be fighting over you when they see "Beat Ninja Gaiden 2 on Master Ninja Mode" on your resume. I'm sure that the only reason Mensa hasn't contacted you is because they feel your presence alone will make all of the other members jealous.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 25 novembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[Arthur Cousland]

If people want to play on easy, then I hope that easy difficulty is there for that reason.  I don't want to run into a lack of challenge on hard/nightmare.  I like when I'm actually forced to think about the upcoming battle, be forced to think defensively, and to actually need healing mages.  Many people who played origins left the mages at camp and used health poultices as a main healing source.  I prefer using items as backup, for when the mage's spells are on cooldown, or one heal isn't enough after a grab.  I also hope that nightmare still gives a good challenge for my maxed out character.  The top tier talents are usually more flashy and fun to use, but that doesn't mean that I want to one-shot everything and make boss battles trivial.

In origins, with my dual wield rogue character, I had to downgrade their weapons to generic and avoid the overpowered Awakening talents just to keep from breezing through boss encounters using mostly auto attacks and one shotting anything below elite rank.  This was on nightmare difficulty. 

What happened to the good old days of having boss encounters that would take 10-20 minutes, where the player would actually want to use all of the best abilities at their disposal just to come out victorious?

Easy mode for those who want an easy game and a nightmare difficulty that is still challenging for end-game, maxed out characters.

[Nighteye2]

Arthur Cousland wrote...
Easy mode for those who want an easy game and a nightmare difficulty that is still challenging for end-game, maxed out characters.

You mean Hard mode that is still challenging for end-game, maxed out characters. And Nightmare even more difficult.

[crimzontearz]

Maria Caliban wrote...


I guess the question would be: Was is a good tutorial?

One of the reasons that Portal's tutorial was excellent was that you couldn't fudge your way through. If you didn't understand the concept they were attempting to teach then you didn't make it through that section.

That actually seems to conflict with the statement of the video that a good game is accessible at first.

Would Origins, from the beginning of the origin to the battle with the ogre, have been better if there were certain sections that could only be passed by displaying specific tactics?

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

These are very gamey examples, but what if the developers identified five 'essential' tactical elements and only let someone progress to the main game after the player had demonstrated use of them?

Because I have observed there was a wide gap between people who got the basics of gameplay and those who didn't.

which reminds me.........

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are?

Actually, I think you got it backwards.  The assumption is: the smarter someone is the more hardcore they are.

David Gaider wrote...

And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb?

Or possibly lazy and/or *clears throat* casual gamers.

David Gaider wrote...
And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

Boy... you've really got it all turned around today DG.  I think it's obvious that since the smart people are the minority, they are actually your less worthwhile customers... something you guys seem to have figured out on your own already.  

[Aesthioseae]

relhart wrote...

They aren't the lowest common denominator, they are average.


130+
Very superior
2.2%

120-129
Superior
6.7%

110-119
High average
16.1%

90-109
Average
50%

80-89
Low average
16.1%

70-79
Borderline
6.7%

Below 70
Extremely low
2.2%

IQ scores broken up by percentage of population. Obviously making a game that caters to people in the 90-120 range is going to appeal to the largest possible audience, (and presumably the highest sales) Mystery solved. DAO wasn't a hard game as it was, it certainly didn't have real strategic depth to it. I don't see DA2 as being much of a departure from that. (based on the little I have seen of it)  Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media being this way.

My only question is: How can you quantify qualitative learning? It's a good question, seeing as that terrible excuse for a measurement was only created to see who was WORTH teaching... honestly I'm glad you're proud of that score. On the same token, that threshold was the average person with a doctorate, so it's also a great tool to label the labeler a genius.

Still though, congrats.