Chaos Gate wrote...
Haexpane wrote...
Yes, I really love how people keep INSISTING we should stop enjoying time tested, user approved RPG mechanics.
We need to STOP LIKING WHAT WE LIKE and only like the NEW STUFF! How DARE we enjoy something without constantly craving "streamlined upgrades" Which are always dumbed down cost cutting hatchet jobs.
Exactly. Well said.
First Person Shooters have been doing the same thing for...what, 10 years? 20 years? And their audience is huge and ever ballooning, despite the core mechanics of the genre remaining the same. I myself am a FPS nut, willing to play anything with a gun pointed at someone else, and while I appreciate innovation, I also love a genre that I instantly recognise and feel comfortable with. I'd definitely hate it if some uppity developer came along and told me that what I have enjoyed for decades was suddenly being changed, and I had to change with it, especially when such a restructure flew in the face of comprehensive evidence suggesting that things are just fine as they are. Not to mention still loved and held very dear by the fans.
I just wish that BioWare would come clean about their (very obvious) motives. They are hurting their long-time user fanbase by being insincere.
Post of the year nominees here.
He said, we're going to keep trying new things, we won't be resting on our laurels and hoping that we're just perfect. Isn't that always what people in game development should be doing? Back on the old forums I can't think how many times I watched the very same people I've seen freaking out about this comment of Mike's sniffing at games that are always the same mechanic with updated graphics and such. Why is it that now these same people seem to want BioWare to do that?? Is it because it ends up with a different perception of it now that they are creating games set in their own IPs?
The problem here is that Bioware isn't trying new things, they're essentially stating that everything other than the ME2/DA2 models are invalid, and that there's something wrong with anyone who disagrees. A sentiment the Bethseda team also tried to put forth, that got them a great deal of hatred.
Trying new things is one thing, running around with a handstamper putting "Invalid" on the forehead of anyone who likes RPGs over Action-Adventure/Shooters isn't a bright idea. The first problem is, it's not a "New thing", those games have existed for 20-30 years. It's almost as old as what they're claiming isn't valid. The second problem is, the reason for it is money, not because there's some need for a shift in gameplay.
Bioware's not "Trying new things", they're trying to make a different genre of games for the sake of more money, continuing to label it as an RPG despite having little to no relation (Depending on the game), and they're telling us that we RPG players are somehow wrong for wanting RPGs.
Because it isn't using the DND editions as an excuse for changes? Because the "new edition" was BioWare's own decision and invention? I fail to see the problem with experimentation and attempts to evolve in and of itself.
Not to be rude, but that's strawmaning. Fallout wasn't based on D&D and it is widely regarded as the very best RPGs ever made because it emulated more of the PnP game than any cRPG before or after. Diablo is grudgingly given RPG status, so is JRPGs.
People need to quit trying to infer that RPG players only want D&D. I promise I'll fill a thread with RPGs that weren't based on D&D that were well received.
Yes, obviously DA2 was not as well received as BioWare had been hoping. I am sure that as a natural part of the process they are looking at that, looking at the feedback and other data collected and figuring out how to correct that problem with future incarnations. That, my dear, is business. And, at that, it's business as usual, around here.
No offense, but you're dead wrong. DA2 was designed before DAO even released. They're not collecting data or looking at feedback, they're looking at some suits power-point saying "This is the only game to make today!!!!!".
That is how buisness is run in gaming. Developers have almost no input, they make what publishers tell them to make, and all the suits care about is what's going to potentially have the highest volume of sales, not what would make the best game, not how can we budget this great idea so it profits. Unlike Hollywood who takes great ideas, and budgets them appropriately so that they'll make profit rather than trying to make every one Titanic.
For those that HAVE had a freak out over this quote. Read it again minus defensiveness and weird expectations. He hasn't attacked old school rpgs or the people who like them, he simply pointed out that once you stop evolving you stagnate. DA:O was a first edition, Awakenings a 1.5, DA2 a 2nd, I'm sure we'll have a 2.5 and a 3rd. This is how RPG's WORK
With all due respect, you need to reread it. It is an attack on RPG players, he is essentially saying that RPG players are invalid.
Further, you and he are misusing the world evolving. Baldur's Gate and Fallout party members with their own personalities was an evolution over silent generated party members. Baldur's Gate 2's party members with personalities, personal requests, and potential romance was evolution over BG and Fallout's basic party members.
Color-coding the dialogue so people don't have to read, enemies popping out of thin air, not being able to equip your party members, and playing like Diablo on Meth isn't evolution. It's bad design and a completely different but already well established type of gameplay. There's nothing new there, I can go buy Diablo, Fate, Torchlight, and many other games to get the exact same thing.
Evolution implies adding something not already present. This did not happen with DA2 or ME2. All they did was change it to some other type of game.
Pretty much this, folks. Baldur's Gate already happened. It's time to experiment with new things. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few stereotype eggs. For an even better omlette, you can add some other ingredients like pepper or ham or cheese or whatever it is people put in omlettes.
Wrong. Making RPGs play like some completely different genre isn't experimenting with new things. It's making games in a completely different genre. There's nothing new here. In fact, what is has is decades old.
Rome fell because they allowed themselves to get too comfortable.
I've got a better analogy for you. Several in fact.
-Sega Genesis and SNES died out because all they did was release the same few types of games.
-Dozens of studios died because they jumped on the FMV bandwagon because it was the new fad.
-Dozens of studios died because they jumped on the RTS bandwagon and screamed "This is the only way to make a game! It's EVOLUTION!!!".
-DAO outsold ME and ME2.
-Pokemon outsold everything Bioware's made.
-No genre in 30 years has died for any reason. Every single genre is still alive and well today. Laidlaw tosses around "Genre-death!" despite the fact that such an event has never occurred in 30 years of gaming.
Gaming history tells a very different story than what Laidlaw is proclaiming.
Retour en haut
i think you just proved a point
