139 réponses à ce sujet

[nisallik]

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

When I read this, I instantly thought of Sylvius the Mad.  But it is a normal conversation between the two. ;p

[moilami]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

Morroian

I have been keeping my posts respectful and basing my opinions based on the information we actually have, combined with some light speculation. Ive been flamed quite a few times just because I say that I do not like how ridiculous and fast the combat animations look, or my disappointment with how dialogue with my companions will work.

The way that DGs quote lumps people who complain about the changes in the game because we feel that BioWare isnt "catering" to us is ridiculous. I dont expect them to cater to me, but I'm not going to pretend that the Dragon Age Origins as the original IP has now turned into what comes off as Dragon Mass Effect Age doesn't upset me at all. Because it does, as I tried to say with as much calm politeness as humanly possible a few posts above.

Exactly. I have a clue how business works and game company is no different to any other business in that regard. So I actually expect them to make a game what appeals to the lowest common denominator on bell curve and by all means not for me. Hell, I could even buy EA shares because I see they clearly are doing it right.

[TwistedComplex]

moilami wrote...

Faster combat? Alright, I am pretty fine with it if it is WotlK Arena deadly. But if it is me only facerolling waves of trash mobs I don't really see the appeal. That said, I would still prefer slower combat with the need to ambush and trap monsters.

Epic fights take time. 

How do you know there won't be lengthy fights in the full game?

[moilami]

TwistedComplex wrote...

moilami wrote...

Faster combat? Alright, I am pretty fine with it if it is WotlK Arena deadly. But if it is me only facerolling waves of trash mobs I don't really see the appeal. That said, I would still prefer slower combat with the need to ambush and trap monsters.

Epic fights take time. 

How do you know there won't be lengthy fights in the full game?

I don't know that, and I haven't said there would be no lenghty fights in full game. Based on demo I have seen maybe three "boss" fights, which all were laughable pushoever fights. Playing DA2 on "nightmare" will probably however change that.

Will have to just get the batman mod and I will be good for the first arcade adventure comedy since Resident Evil!

[Cucco]

Morroian wrote...

Cucco wrote...

I'd also like to point out the contradiction in Mike Laidlaw saying that newcomers should love DA since most of the games they already play use D&D mechanics (sports games with stats, shooters with leveling, etc.), yet apparently those very mechanics are too scary for people who haven't tried DA and other RPGs yet, so they need to soften them. Again, as they say "you won't be able to please everyone" when it comes to trying to get them to enjoy fantasy narratives they simply have no interest in.

The rpg aspects in those games are very light.

I don't see much of a difference.  Sports games have all of the statistics, fps have all the levelling up besides new skills, and tactical games like Starcraft, well that's obvious.  I see no reason why Mr. Laidlaw would be wrong in suggesting the core of rpg mechanics is already well known, nor how I would be mistaken by saying there is nothing complex about D & D mechanics - I'm sure newcomers know how boardgames work (if they even face the diceroll aspect of the rpgs which I haven't seen presented openly since the time of Baldur's Gate, personally).  So, I've expressed myself to a great length, if you have a rebuttle please extrapolate.

Edit: I would also add to my original argument that usually the rpg aspects of other genres are what make their games addictive.  I don't wee why Bioware discussing them as if they are distressing to newcomers.

Modifié par Cucco, 04 mars 2011 - 01:46 .

[Satyricon331]

Glorfindel709 wrote...
The way that DGs quote lumps people who complain about the changes in the game because we feel that BioWare isnt "catering" to us is ridiculous. I dont expect them to cater to me, but I'm not going to pretend that the Dragon Age Origins as the original IP has now turned into what comes off as Dragon Mass Effect Age doesn't upset me at all. Because it does, as I tried to say with as much calm politeness as humanly possible a few posts above. 

Suron wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...
Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

other then the fact Gaider brings that up at any sign of a similar question, no not really.

If anything, as I said, it's just tiring to hear.  Because he says it EVERY time a similar question is asked him.

It's obvious hit his nerve.  And he's overtly defensive.

DG's quote is really obnoxious in context.  He starts out discussing the "average RPG fan," narrows the discussion to the computer-using ones, and then says "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at."  As stated, it's so ridiculous and would reflect such an attenuated, sloppy line of thinking that when I read it, I thought he might have been misspeaking and was discussing a more circumscribed set of RPG fans while neglecting to say so explicitly (I can certainly think of a few posters for whom his characterization is true).  But have there really been other interviews where he says the same thing?

(Great posts, btw, Glorfindel)

[2Hard2C]

Merced652 wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Suron wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

other then the fact Gaider brings that up at any sign of a similar question, no not really.

If anything, as I said, it's just tiring to hear.  Because he says it EVERY time a similar question is asked him.

It's obvious hit his nerve.  And he's overtly defensive.

No, he is exactly right when he says that. The people who react to change badly do it to every change that doesn't suit them personally, making them overtly critical, not him overtly defensive.

Well i'm overtly critical, its pointless in many cases to be covertly critical.

I agree with David Gaider. And I love RPGs, but sometimes change is good. I don't want to be playing a carbon copy of DA:O, as much as I love the game, it just wouldn't make it as special for me if DAII was exactly like it.

[moilami]

2Hard2C wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Suron wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

other then the fact Gaider brings that up at any sign of a similar question, no not really.

If anything, as I said, it's just tiring to hear.  Because he says it EVERY time a similar question is asked him.

It's obvious hit his nerve.  And he's overtly defensive.

No, he is exactly right when he says that. The people who react to change badly do it to every change that doesn't suit them personally, making them overtly critical, not him overtly defensive.

Well i'm overtly critical, its pointless in many cases to be covertly critical.

I agree with David Gaider. And I love RPGs, but sometimes change is good. I don't want to be playing a carbon copy of DA:O, as much as I love the game, it just wouldn't make it as special for me if DAII was exactly like it.

Not exactly same but polished and perfected version with a new story like BG2 was to BG. Of like what Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

[dheer]

I really enjoyed the interview until he went out of his way to attack pc gamers again.

How dare we want the strengths of our platform catered to.

[Satyricon331]

XX-Pyro wrote...
No, he is exactly right when he says that. The people who react to change badly do it to every change that doesn't suit them personally, making them overtly critical, not him overtly defensive.

I wonder if anyone actually believes that the average cRPG fan reacts badly to any perceived change, which is what his quote indicates.  

[Glorfindel709]

Thanks Satyricon.

I understand, that the rude "trolls" that run amok on the DA2 forums harping on and on about how bad the changes are in DA2 must be really really annoying for the developers, i really do. But the fact remains to lump those of us who actually do have concerns to those who are just "pissed off because they're not being catered" to is both distressing to me as a fan (especially a fan who has PMed some Devs thanking them for all the hard work in creating DA:O and how it's my favorite game blah blah moving on) of BioWare, and as a customer.

I dont think having a legitimate opinion about something is worth being attacked over *shrugs*

[In Exile]

Cucco wrote...
I'm going to assume that a lot of Baldur's Gate fans (or even any other Bioware game after) had their first encounter with the game, and the mechanic, at a very young age (such as myself). As in, between the ages of 8 and 14 (let's say). For the hell of it, let's throw in anyone who ever played games like Pokemon (as embarrassing as it is to some), and we will assume that they, also, began playing said games at a very young age.

But there were lots of people that "encountered" a game like BG (say NWN) and immediately wrote the game off because of the learning curve. I did. I got into RPGs with KoTOR, which was accesible. You didn't need to learn the entire mechanism of AD&D to play the game on normal. Compared with either BG or NWN, where you needed to understand a tremendous amount to play.

Some people don't want to work for their hobby. It's that simple. It's hard to grow your user base if you're setting up a huge barrier to entry like that.

[SeanMurphy2]

I think it is fair enough.

I think as developers they have to accept that they can't make everyone happy and instead back their own judgment.

Most fans are great. But I see some fans who complain if the game is not precisely as they expect it to be.

[In Exile]

Cucco wrote...
I don't see much of a difference.  Sports games have all of the statistics, fps have all the levelling up besides new skills, and tactical games like Starcraft, well that's obvious.  I see no reason why Mr. Laidlaw would be wrong in suggesting the core of rpg mechanics is already well known, nor how I would be mistaken by saying there is nothing complex about D & D mechanics - I'm sure newcomers know how boardgames work (if they even face the diceroll aspect of the rpgs which I haven't seen presented openly since the time of Baldur's Gate, personally).  So, I've expressed myself to a great length, if you have a rebuttle please extrapolate.

Edit: I would also add to my original argument that usually the rpg aspects of other genres are what make their games addictive.  I don't wee why Bioware discussing them as if they are distressing to newcomers.

The problem with your argument is that the way in which those games handle values and the way in which an RPG jointly handles them is not even remotely similar.

Sports games use statistics - but to play the game you need nothing more than an intuitive knowledge that the higher each number is (0-99) is better.  If I play NBA 2K11, then I can my baseline knowledge of the NBA, the very simple notion and that the bigger numbers are better along with player skill (if you're good at the game, you can use a garbage team to destory an all-star team) to dominate the game.

Knowing "bigger numbers are good" is effectively useless in an RPG and there's no prior experience (like being a sports fan) that you can apply.

FPS use skills now - but those skills (while statistical) are binary. And they're a pretty recent development. But they're like skills in Mass Effect; they're action-RPG abilities, not statistically driven RPG abilities. They don't upgrade linearly, and their use depends on other skills & coordination (because you're also controlling the party).

So I don't see what you're driving at.

[Cucco]

In Exile wrote...

Cucco wrote...
I don't see much of a difference.  Sports games have all of the statistics, fps have all the levelling up besides new skills, and tactical games like Starcraft, well that's obvious.  I see no reason why Mr. Laidlaw would be wrong in suggesting the core of rpg mechanics is already well known, nor how I would be mistaken by saying there is nothing complex about D & D mechanics - I'm sure newcomers know how boardgames work (if they even face the diceroll aspect of the rpgs which I haven't seen presented openly since the time of Baldur's Gate, personally).  So, I've expressed myself to a great length, if you have a rebuttle please extrapolate.

Edit: I would also add to my original argument that usually the rpg aspects of other genres are what make their games addictive.  I don't wee why Bioware discussing them as if they are distressing to newcomers.

The problem with your argument is that the way in which those games handle values and the way in which an RPG jointly handles them is not even remotely similar.

Sports games use statistics - but to play the game you need nothing more than an intuitive knowledge that the higher each number is (0-99) is better.  If I play NBA 2K11, then I can my baseline knowledge of the NBA, the very simple notion and that the bigger numbers are better along with player skill (if you're good at the game, you can use a garbage team to destory an all-star team) to dominate the game.

Knowing "bigger numbers are good" is effectively useless in an RPG and there's no prior experience (like being a sports fan) that you can apply.

FPS use skills now - but those skills (while statistical) are binary. And they're a pretty recent development. But they're like skills in Mass Effect; they're action-RPG abilities, not statistically driven RPG abilities. They don't upgrade linearly, and their use depends on other skills & coordination (because you're also controlling the party).

So I don't see what you're driving at.

Those points are only one part of my overall argument, and yes, of course each genre holds a separate aspect of the rpg individually.  Though, to use a sports game as an example, I do not see how there could be a comprehension gap between having values for Strength, Willpower, Charisma, Cunning, Dexterity and say, for NHL games, having Agility, Puck Control, Slapshot Accuracy, Strength, etc.  Most rpgs are even more explicit in explaining what exactly those values contribute to your character's abillities when, as you point out, in sportsgames they are usually superfluous to a certain degree.

Regardless they illustrate a core aspect of the overall D & D mechanic, and it is not altogether a very complex one at that.  Mr. Laidlaw's point is that nowadays players are, in a sense, properly prepared to face the overall rpg mechanic through the other genres with rpg aspects that they have experienced--as opposed to the past when gamers would play games like Baldur's Gate having absolutely no prior experience with rpgs, and sometimes facing the D&D world at a very young age.

But to use your zeroing-in on sports games, I'll bring up another, more important, part of my argument.  Would I go out an buy a sportsgame, let's say NHL 2011, if I didn't like hockey?  Is it not more likely that I would avoid a hockey game based on not liking the sport than not wanting to look over a player's 20-30 different skill statistics?  I would think the former, and this is what I'm "driving at."

As for your experience with NWN, I would be curious to know what about the game's mechanic turned you away from it that didn't turn you away from DA?

Lastly, consider the changes to DA2.  In particular, things like the removal of tactical views and the detachable camera.  Why would this be a mechanic of D&D games that is inaccessible to the common gamer?  Bioware didn't remove the skill trees, the hp, or even the diceroll (although it has essentially turned into a percentage probability rather than a 2d6) which, if they did, would make theirs and your 'accessibility' argument make more sense if it were true.  Is a tactical view any less accessible or fearful than percentage probability to the common gamer?  I think not, and I don't think probability is either.

I will restate my point: people who dislike fantasy narratives, just like people who dislike or have no interest in hockey, are not going to play the respective games regardless of their mechanics.  The argument that Bioware must make the rpg more accessible is a fallacy.