333 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

You missed the point Upsettingshorts.

Wouldn't be the first time. 

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

The games Bioware now produces are completely different from the games they used to make. That has nothing to do with egocentrism or something, it's a fact.

Well, that's not precisely what I was saying.  To put it simply, "back in the day" different people played the games for different reasons and with different approaches.  When changes are made to favor one approach over another, we are seeing this divide.  That isn't to say it's a step backwards as covered above, it literally means one approach is being supported and the other is not. 

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Mass Effect 1 and 2 and, very likely, Dragon Age 2 have nothing in common with the "good old" Bioware games that changed the entire genre.

It depends why you played those "good old" games, for what reason, and what parts of them you liked, doesn't it?

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

We see the exact opposite now: Bioware makes heavily streamlined games.

One of these days I'm going to demand someone explain, in detail, precisely what streamlining is.  On the boards, I've seen it being used to describe GUI changes, accessibility, removal of features the poster liked, and most convincingly, elimination of "redundancy."  

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

So, this being said, Bioware has changed. Do not expect them to make the same games they used to, they won't.

Glad you put it this way, as it will allow me to illustrate my point clearly.  To me there is a word of difference implied between these two statements:
Bioware no longer makes games I enjoy
Bioware is no longer a good company/has abandoned its roots/has been corrupted by EA.

[Gleym]

No offense here, but to me, your defense is starting to feel more and more like you're saying two things:

"Everyone else enjoys the game, so you should too because what you like doesn't matter."

"Having your personal preference is bad. Just enjoy what they release no matter what otherwise you have no right to complain."

[upsettingshorts]

Gleym wrote...

So if Pixar suddenly had a change of management and started making movies below their usual standard of quality and in a different direction, it'd still be considered what would be defined as a 'Pixar movie'? If a restaurant used to have a
kitchen full of master chefs who took the time to meticulously prepare dishes unparalleled, only to come under new management and their methods being altered, causing the quality of the dishes to change and become unlike what they used to, would that still be defined as that's restaurant's standard of dining?

And this is not egocentrism?  You're using the changes Bioware has been making as objective evaluations of quality, preparation, and appeal.  Why not just say, "I don't like Pixar movies anymore" or "I don't eat at that restaurant anymore." 

Yes, a Pixar movie you don't like is still a Pixar movie.

Gleym wrote...

It's about what makes something the basic standard of quality in a game. Just because you slap Bioware's name on it, doesn't mean it will neccesarily be a game of Bioware's standard if contrasted to their previous award winners.

No, they don't meet your standards.  To me, possibly to others, this isn't the case at all. 

Gleym wrote...

Call it egocentrism if you absolutely must, but in my eyes it isn't the case.

I certainly don't have to, but that is what the argument appears to be based on. 

Gleym wrote...

No offense here, but to me, your defense is starting to feel more and more like you're saying two things:
"Everyone else enjoys the game, so you should too because what you like doesn't matter."
"Having your personal preference is bad. Just enjoy what they release no matter what otherwise you have no right to complain."

No, my argument is essentially outlined at the bottom of the post at the top of this page. I'm not taking issue with your dislike of DA:2's features, whatever they may be specifically, but your argument itself. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[Gleym]

Yes. The outline which pretty much says 'You shouldn't feel this way and should just enjoy the game regardless of how much you enjoyed their previous work'.

[nightcobra]

Gleym wrote...

Yes. The outline which pretty much says 'You shouldn't feel this way and should just enjoy the game regardless of how much you enjoyed their previous work'.

not how i read it.

[upsettingshorts]

Gleym wrote...

Yes. The outline which pretty much says 'You shouldn't feel this way and should just enjoy the game regardless of how much you enjoyed their previous work'.

Please explain - you, or anyone else following along - please explain how you get that from this:

Upsettingshorts wrote...
To me there is a word of difference implied between these two statements:

Bioware no longer makes games I enjoy
Bioware is no longer a good company/has abandoned its roots/has been corrupted by EA.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience while alienating another, smaller one. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your equipment, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your equipment, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

Would you say that increasing accessibility without reducing complexity is impossible?  Or just isn't industry practice?

[Ziggeh]

Gleym wrote...

So if Pixar suddenly had a change of management and started making movies below their usual standard of quality and in a different direction, it'd still be considered what would be defined as a 'Pixar movie'?

Feel free to point out this is pedantry (and that that was apparently alliteration), but yes, it would. It would alter what the term "Pixar movie" means, not become detached from it. You could call it a poor example, or divide the term into prior and post, but the idea of a static, shared benchmark is a fiction.

Gleym wrote...
Call it egocentrism if you absolutely must, but in my eyes it isn't the case.

And that's fine, that's not egotism, that's opinion. Saying that it's objectively the case, that it's audience as a whole feels this way, that's whats egotistical.

[nightcobra]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your inventory, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

thank god that stupid stuff won't be on DA2 since what you can't customize is visual companion equipment and that they're adding more action while keeping the tactical combat.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:58 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your inventory, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

thank god that stupid stuff won't be on DA2 since what you can't customize is visual companion equipment and that they're adding more action while keeping the tactical combat.

Idealism vs. Realism my friend. 

[Piecake]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your inventory, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

thank god that stupid stuff won't be on DA2 since what you can't customize is visual companion equipment and that they're adding more action while keeping the tactical combat.

Idealism vs. Realism my friend. 

more like pessimism vs. optimism

[FellowerOfOdin]

Piecake wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your inventory, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

thank god that stupid stuff won't be on DA2 since what you can't customize is visual companion equipment and that they're adding more action while keeping the tactical combat.

Idealism vs. Realism my friend. 

more like pessimism vs. optimism

Not really. Judging from the infos we yet have, it's the first.

[Gleym]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Please explain - you, or anyone else following along - please explain how you get that from this:

Pretty much this: Somehow in your eyes, it seems that my prefering the old style as opposed to you prefering the new is 'wrong'. To use your exact words, 'monolithic'. And as a result, you have summed up, rather mockingly if I must be honest, the various reasons for why as 'they don't do what I like, hmph!' and a paranoid exaggeration of the remarks made about EA's control over Bioware, even though this worry is a very legitimate one, given that EA has an actual reputation for doing this. If you've been a Bioware fan for as long as you say, i.e. as far back as the 90's, then please explain to me how you were the only one who apparently didn't let out a huge 'Oh no!' at the news of Bioware being bought out by EA?

So in other words, because of how you've 'summed up' the reasons as being a petulant 'I don't like!' and a paranoid 'EA is evil!', I can only assume that you are condemning my stance simply because you enjoy this new era and I do not. And since you're clearly working so hard to debunk my points at every turn, you likely must want me to share your outlook on this matter. Which means that you don't care, as long as people enjoy the game as much as you do, and expect them to do so, regardless of how they might feel.

And..

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Feel free to point out this is
pedantry (and that that was apparently alliteration), but yes, it
would. It would alter what the term "Pixar movie" means, not become
detached from it. You could call it a poor example, or divide the term
into prior and post, but the idea of a static, shared benchmark is a
fiction.

Consider this an example of Pixar quality versus what might be considered 'below Pixar quality'.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Streamlining, in general, is making a game more accessible to satisfy a broader audience. This includes good things as e.g. less complex inventory management, but also includes stupid stuff (to me that is at least) like not allowing you to customize your equipment, making combat less tactical and more action-driven, etc.

Would you say that increasing accessibility without reducing complexity is impossible?  Or just isn't industry practice?

If I can but in, I would say that it just hasn't been perfected yet. 

For my money, streamlining is making things more accesible while retainging the core elements that you love.  Finding a way to make the inventory system less complex but keeping the equipment manegment and customisation, that would be streamlining.  Dumbing down is more when you cut the element out entirely to make the gameplay more accesible.

[Gleym]

Blastback wrote...

Dumbing down is more when you cut the element out entirely to make the gameplay more accesible.

Mass Effect 2 is guilty of this. Hence the worry that Dragon Age 2 will follow.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[RedRoo]

Man, I wish I held onto some of those posts back when NWN was still in development. "Why," posters would begin, "does my D&D game now look like a Diablo 2 clone?! AAAAUGH DAMN YOU BIOWARE WHERE IS MY BG2 CHARACTER IMPORT?!"



The last game BioWare made that was anywhere near BG2 was... BG2. And I think that's perfectly fine-- and a testament to how great a game it was. It's definitely not something that would hold up to today's standards; heck, it wasn't holding up to the standards of NWN's time.

[Ziggeh]

Gleym wrote...

Pretty much this: Somehow in your eyes, it seems that my prefering the old style as opposed to you prefering the new is 'wrong'. To use your exact words, 'monolithic'.

No.....he was saying that the audience wasn't monolithic, that it wasn't a uniform entity with a single approach and opinion, and that to say that your own opinion represented this was wrong. He hasn't said anything about your opinion in itself being wrong.

[Gleym]

RedRoo wrote...

Man, I wish I held onto some of those posts back when NWN was still in development. "Why," posters would begin, "does my D&D game now look like a Diablo 2 clone?! AAAAUGH DAMN YOU BIOWARE WHERE IS MY BG2 CHARACTER IMPORT?!"

The last game BioWare made that was anywhere near BG2 was... BG2. And I think that's perfectly fine-- and a testament to how great a game it was. It's definitely not something that would hold up to today's standards; heck, it wasn't holding up to the standards of NWN's time.

You're referring to the NWN fiasco, I would imagine. To be fair, that's yet another case of 'change in management' affecting the games. BG2 was worked on by Black Isle, who were working on NWN at the time. When Black Isle went belly-up, the game changed hands.

[Ziggeh]

Gleym wrote...

Consider this an example of Pixar quality versus what might be considered 'below Pixar quality'.

Right, so if someone else other than Bioware makes an rpg, we can very definitely call it "not a Bioware rpg".

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[Gleym]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Right, so if someone else other than Bioware makes an rpg, we can very definitely call it "not a Bioware rpg".

More like: If Pixar suddenly started making movies of Dreamworks quality, but still kept the Pixar label, it be 'not a Pixar movie'.

[Blastback]

Gleym wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Dumbing down is more when you cut the element out entirely to make the gameplay more accesible.

Mass Effect 2 is guilty of this. Hence the worry that Dragon Age 2 will follow.

Oh,I get the concern.  The companion outfits was one of the things that bothered me about ME2, and it looks like DA@ will have a very similar system.

[upsettingshorts]

Gleym wrote...

Pretty much this: Somehow in your eyes, it seems that my prefering the old style as opposed to you prefering the new is 'wrong'. To use your exact words, 'monolithic'.

That was not what I said.  I said that you were implying that your preferences are universally represented, thus resulting in a monolithic ideal - which was shared by other people, the "old fans."  Some sort of shared notion of what an RPG should and must be.  My dispute was that opinions on the matter are far more diverse than your argument requires them to be.

Gleym wrote...

And as a result, you have summed up, rather mockingly if I must be honest, the various reasons for why as 'they don't do what I like, hmph!' and a paranoid exaggeration of the remarks made about EA's control over Bioware, even though this worry is a very legitimate one, given that EA has an actual reputation for doing this.

I'm not mocking your opinions.  If I'm mocking anything, it's your conclusion.  It is at best circumstancial, at worst self-serving nonsense.

Gleym wrote...

If you've been a Bioware fan for as long as you say, i.e. as far back as the 90's, then please explain to me how you were the only one who apparently didn't let out a huge 'Oh no!' at the news of Bioware being bought out by EA?

Because EA was the producer for many games I absolutely loved and viewed their acquisition with the big picture in mind.  Instead of making one game I'm interested in every few years, Bioware is making a handful of them.  Is there a chance EA would slam the door on them like they did with EA Canada after they made the atrocious NBA Elite 11?  Possibly.  Electronic Arts was even responsible for shutting down my favorite developer of all time, Origin Systems. But I'm not going to derail this into a pro or anti EA thread.  Let's just say my opinion on them is nuanced, complicated, and would be another topic unto itself that would mostly live in a gray area of "I'm not sure what to think."  I certainly don't view them as the bogeyman others do.  They're a company, not some evil cartoon villain. 

And for the record my first Bioware game was Baldur's Gate.  In many ways, it was one of my first RPGs, as I never played the Ultima games, Final Fantasy, even the earliest Elder Scroll games.  The only other RPG series I played back in the day was Fallout, I was more of a space and flight sim fan if I was anything.  My cRPG gaming "roots" is Bioware.

Gleym wrote...

So in other words, because of how you've 'summed up' the reasons as being a petulant 'I don't like!' and a paranoid 'EA is evil!', I can only assume that you are condemning my stance simply because you enjoy this new era and I do not.

I'm attacking your argument, not your views on Dragon Age 2.  And if it's because of anything, it's because the argument is petulant.  I never call out Sylvius in this way for example. 

Gleym wrote...

And since you're clearly working so hard to debunk my points at every turn, you likely must want me to share your outlook on this matter. Which means that you don't care, as long as people enjoy the game as much as you do, and expect them to do so, regardless of how they might feel.

Nope.  I want to read good arguments, and I imagine Bioware does too.  I don't care if I've heard it 9000 times, but a discussion on the actual pros and cons of any feature - even if the post simply goes on for page after page about why the feature stinks - is far more interesting, compelling, and defensible.  My favorite discussion on these forums so far was the back and forth I had with Sylvius in which we figured out how we approach cRPGs.  We couldn't be more different, neither expects the other to change, but the insight I gained from understanding how wildly different approaches to these games can be afforded me the ability to understand opinions wildly different from mine without dismissing them as misguided nonsense or corporate pandering.  My interest in arguments is to encourage discussions like those, not to convert anybody.

Gleym wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is guilty of this. Hence the worry that Dragon Age 2 will follow.

Considering how many people who use the term "dumbing down" with regards to Mass Effect 2's wildly different weapon performance characteristics, I'm not sure its appropriate in that specific case - considering ME2 introduced a feature that so many missed completely simply because it wasn't - and this is the problem - indicated clearly in the GUI.

If I consider Mass Effect 2 "guilty" of anything, it's guilty of having realized it's actually a shooter, and becoming one.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[ErichHartmann]

I found Baldur's Gate to be more "accessible" than most RPGs back then. Its all relative to how many RPGs one has played I suppose.

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:24 .

[Revya]

The post by blackcanopus explains it all



http://www.rpgwatch....ead.php?t=11955