Thank you for considering my post.
Terror_K wrote...
If it's at the expense of the existing fans, then the answer is "yes" as far as I'm concerned. If you want to bring them aboard to your company then that's fine... do it with a new IP and a new action RPG. The problem is lately BioWare seem determined to sabotage their existing IPs by making them too different and taking away a lot of what drew a good deal of fans to them and made them fans in the first place. If in order to appeal to a larger audience you have to remove, tone down or dumb down the very elements that appeal to the existing fans to do so then the answer is simply "yes" to this question. DA2's main problem is actually that "2" on the end. It should have been a spin-off title... it should have been Dragon Age: Dark Alliance, not a direct sequel. If one has to sacrifice a chunk of their player base to increase it, then they shouldn't. A game series should be made for its existing fans above all else, and the problem is that BioWare seem to be making their sequels more for those who weren't really fans because they were put off by a few factors than they are for those who are fans.
A new IP wouldn't necessarily be more successful at increasing the RPG player base. All new IPs have to clear the same hurdle: drawing consumer attention and anticipation. That hurdle exists regardless of genre. By carrying the label RPG, any new IP still has to engage that new crowd. There are obvious benefits in using an existing IP as a centre of gravity.
I cannot deny your argument that in relying on an existing IP to support a radically altered sequel that that inherently leads to the alienation of sections of the existing player base. Nor will I attempt to refute the misnomer of DA 2. However, the: "above all else" claim seems to me to be occupying a trench.
Genre stagnation --despite its rather PRish sound-- is a very real issue, and I cannot imagine myself still playing the same format over and over until death us do part. Not wanting to sound like a social Darwinist - all must adapt to survive. How such evolution is handled will never be a simple equation. Some merit is deserved for attempting to evolve the genre: even if those evolutions ultimately represent failure.
Terror_K wrote...
That depends. One can take this too far and make them too simple, just as one can make them too complex. Complexity is part of the appeal to an RPG. I've always said --particularly regarding ME2-- that the whole point of streamlining something is to make something more user-friendly and accessible, but while still maintaining the full functionality of the mechanic in the process. Both ME2 and DA2 failed to do this and oversimplified, and instead of making complexity simple like they should they removed the complexity entirely and just left us with simplicity. Fine in an action game, but not an RPG. When one goes too far then one just makes the system and game shallow and lacking. A classic example of this in DA2 is Rogues now automatically being able to simply unlock things and disarm traps without needing any linked skill to do it. It's just shallow and dumbed down.
Balance. Perhaps BW are guilty of lacking imagination when it comes to catering to those disparate goals. But if I imagine a game interface divided into two categories: Old School, New School, I inevitable see division amongst the community that differs little from a game with a single interface that attempts to appeal to both schools.
Obviously the converse applies and attempting to please everyone often leads to pleasing no one.
I'm minded of in-game tutorials, or that level one cave with a weak opponent designed to ease the player into the mechanics of a game. As an old school gamer I'm often able to disable those elements and crack on with the story. The point here being that we have accepted the notion of a novice entering our domain and we do cater to them. We can and should do better.
Terror_K wrote...
Again, it depends. The problem with combat in DA2 visually is that it tries too hard. It's just clearly putting so much effort to be flashy and fast and "badass!" without any real substance. DA2 combat is the guy that Indiana Jones shot flinging his sword around in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's like a Michael Bay movie. It's just the Rule of Cool and is just there to be visually impressive and give teenagers a hard-on rather than offering any depth or purpose. It just comes across as peurile and immature, like a modern Hollywood action film. And the fact that this chump and his family are more adept it seems at dealing with darkspawn at level one while flipping all over the place like Jay Kay and Jackie Chan's lovechild on coffee more effectively than The Hero of Ferelden does while fighting sensibly at Level 25 in DA:O is a joke.
All flash and no bang. It is unfortunate, yet a fact that the type of individual you describe represents the future. The inexorable march of time still applies to them however, and I imagine that the new guard will also evolve their own tastes and desire the complexity that we appear to have lost.
It's a cycle that cannot be avoided. Are we currently in the downward phase?
Drawing on my gaming past for examples, I'm reminded of the evolution of Operation Flash Point: an extremely tactical and difficult combat simulator that has evolved toward a standard format FPS. The combat evolved from visually nondescript to visually stimulating and engaging, but at the expense of realism.
Terror_K wrote...
Yes. This was one of my biggest beefs with ME2 actually: that half the game ends up playing itself for me and barely lets me mess with or tweak anything because the developers made the game more for ADD-riddled teenagers who are scared by numbers and start whining like a baby baboon as soon as anything even remotely gets "in the way" of their game-play and killing things. A good RPG should never automate too much to the point where it feels like you barely have any control over anything but dialogue or what to kill. Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect felt like driving a car: i could choose where I went, how I went, as fast as I went, in what gear and listening to whatever music I liked. ME2 and DA2 were like a taxi-drive: somewhat the same trip, but most of this is done for me and I barely have any input. Simply put, overautomating makes the game shallow, boring and even pointless. Cutting the player out of the game and not letting them have control when they should is a bigger sin in my books than making them deal too much with things unneccesarrily, which is while I'll still always find sifting though hundreds of samey weapons and omni-gelling them one at a time more satisfying than a system that just sets things on autopilot and lets me God-mod everything to the max without any real input, thought or effort simply because the former actually gives me choice and the other is mindless automation that doesn't.
Isn't the tactics screen --present in both DA: O and DA 2-- a clear example of successful automation of complexity? It's one of my favourite components of both games, and I believe that it demonstrate that it is possible to achieve that goal. Clearly the player is required to invest in that system if they choose to use it, but it also has very useful defaults that adapt as the game/player advances through the OC. In truth, if a player is not micromanaging each and every pseudo roll then they are relying on hidden complexity.
The inner mechanics of DA 2 combat, in general, remains the same (excluding the no-miss mechanic). Their presentation in the character screen is clearly an attempt at simplifying those mechanics. In the extreme, I should not require MathLab to discern the optimal build for an PC. And yet, I can find good analysis of min/max building for DA 2.
I too wish to see the return of full NPC customisation and a detailed inventory/Lore system that engages my intellect and enthuses my connection to the game world. I agree fully that this was a poor design choice.
Terror_K wrote...
Guiding and pushing are not the same thing. After some fairly long responses, I think --fittingly-- that this one can simply be summed up with that rather succinctly.
Personally I never felt as though I was being pushed through the game. Guided - most definitely, but not pushed. Emerging from the dungeons to be met with the open world of Oblivion can be intimidating for novice players. I recall the Oblivion forum boards being flooded with: "Where do I go...". comments. So it can swing both ways.
The game-play menu does provide enough options to severe the guiding hand, and if I choose to I can spend twenty minutes trying to find that Dwarf or that Trap Door. There are many quests in DA 2 and they are enabled in a variety of ways. It is perfectly possible to ignore the letters desk in the players Home, ignore the posters calling for aid and ultimately refuse to grab that corpse and return to the owner with the most amusing statement: "Here, I've found your reason for living.".
In conclusion:
I offer no solutions. I only have more questions. If paradoxes exist in the gaming world then DA 2 offers a definition: and attempts a solution.
Regards
Crash_7
Modifié par Crash_7, 25 mars 2011 - 03:52 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
) I don't understand why people think it's THAT important that their characters outfits change. I don't think it's unreasonable as a developer for you to want the character YOU created to stay in character.
