966 réponses à ce sujet

[mdugger12]

ejoslin wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

So, given that...  Should CoD have the shooting elements simplified and the story elements enhanced to appeal to a wider audience?

The problem is, of course, that RPG fans like their RPGs.  It's a better idea to keep a game true to its genre but make it so good that more people buy it to try it out (like DAO, which is hugely successful despite being a fairly old-skool type RPG).

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

[Dormiglione]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

Are we playing the same game? I dont think so. The DA2 combat system is more complex than DAO. Please tell how does the combat system of DA2 is more complex as DAO.

- DA2 has a faster pace. Does this make the combat more complex? No, its just faster, nothing else.
- Does DA2 deliver better AI for your NPC? No, the i noticed the contrary. So many times my NPC just stand still, not attacking anymore the enemy.
- Does DA2 give me more tatctical Option to set the behavior of my NPC? No, i have the same options in DAO
- Does DA2 deilver a special class of a warrior / rogue / mage that can be used better in tactics? No, the contrary, in DAO i had a berserker called Ogren. This one was really devastating.
- DA2 has Cool-Down on Potions and Bombs. How should this be more complex? It just leads me to run around and hope that i dont get killed while im waiting to use again a potion.

So what are you talking about?

Narrative Design is more sophisticated. Not true, it just simplifies the excuse of having no branches in the storyline. Because you know, its narrative, the story happened this way. You have to go this way.

[Aradace]

Everwarden wrote...

Aradace wrote...
But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

Enjoy it while you can. DA2 sales are awful, and the odds are if there is a sequel that goes in the same direction it won't break a million and Laidlaw will get canned. EA doesn't understand art, but they understand losing money. 

It is true, I'll agree with that.  Regardless, even though I enjoyed DA2, once I have my copy of ME3 in hand (and all associated DLC) I wont be too concerned with what happens after that.  DA:O I enjoyed the first few times I played through it,  but once I played every possible spec, it got boring.  Which means I could have rented it from Gamefly, got what I wanted out of it, and sent it back, which I failed to do sadly.  DA2, again, while I enjoyed it, still should have resigned myself to renting it but didnt.  Wont make that mistake with DA3.  

Admittedly, DA2 is flawed, regardless, I still like it.  And once they release the PS3 patch next week, I'll be able to enjoy it more.  But I dont think it deserves all the flaming that alot of folks are giving it.  But, that's just my opinion.  If people dont enjoy it, that's fine, they're of course entitled to that opinion as well.  Thing is, can you honestly expect the genre to stay the same as 10-20 years ago, and there be 0 change and not be called unreasonable or naive?

[Aramintai]

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

And telling their core audience to shove off if they don't like it is a good PR strategy? People would not be so negative on the interview if DAII was a new franchise, not a poorly made sequel of the existing one, which Bioware's PR is trying to sell by bashing it's more successful predecessor. Any bold experiments would at the very least have been seen with a benefit of a doubt. But DAII is part of the series. The majority liked DA:O the way it was and were in the right to expect from DAII similar or even better experience. Instead they were given worse - DAII is dumbed down and underdeveloped compared to Origins, with some completely unnessesary rehauls. So basically by experimenting with DAII BioWare neglected it's core fans for a potential new casual audience in a not too subtle way and many people are not happy about it. Hence the outrage of this thread. The casual gamers come and go but only hardcore fans, who praised your company to greatness, remain.

P.S. Not that it's related, but I recall there was a similar inteview with Patrice Desilets from Ubisoft about Prince of Persia (2008). He also said dumbing down the game for casual players is good way to go. And look what happened - that game has yet to see any sequel and Desilets is no longer working for Ubisoft.

Modifié par Aramintai, 15 avril 2011 - 11:07 .

[Stegoceras]

mdugger12 wrote...
It seems like you had a pretty simple way to wipe them out, but that sounds like more of an AI issue then a problem with waves of enemies. How would anything have been different if you only ran into the first mob of enemies? I mean it sounds like you pretty much would have just been "nuking the main group".........the end.

Sorry if it wasn't entirely clear, but the point I was making is that the wave system gets really boring very fast (hence I put the part of the way I play in () but apparently that was the part you picked up on), it seems the DA2 system seems to want to drag on the fights up until the point of ridicoulosness with the waves and then rinse and repeat.

On a side note of what you said, DA2 is full of so much cannon fodder nuking them is more of a rule than an exception.

[Antaress]

in the end Laidlaw will have its Jade Empire 2 >_>
http://www.gamespot....adlines;title;4

[mdugger12]

Aramintai wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

And telling their core audience to shove off if they don't like it is a good PR strategy? People would not be so negative on the interview if DAII was a new franchise, not a poorly made sequel of the existing one, which Bioware's PR is trying to sell by bashing it's more successful predecessor. Any bold experiments would at the very least have been seen with a benefit of a doubt. But DAII is part of the series. The majority liked DA:O the way it was and were in the right to expect from DAII similar or even better experience. Instead they were given worse - DAII is dumbed down and underdeveloped compared to Origins, with some completely unnessesary rehauls. So basically by experimenting with DAII BioWare neglected it's core fans for a potential new casual audience in a not too subtle way and many people are not happy about it. Hence the outrage of this thread. 

They didn't neglect the core audience. They simply asked the core audience to share game with fans that aren't experienced with RPGs and expect certain things from their video games. They asked for an adult audience to act like adults and give other gamers a chance to love what they love. They didn't drastically change "your" franchise, they just made it available to new fans.

[Yrkoon]

xkg wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

 Do I think putting waves in tactically interesting start points is an improvement? ABSOLUTELY.

 

LOL!

 This is an example of just about every fight in the game.  But forget about that for a moment.

Picture this:  You've got Mike Laidlaw, the lead designer of  the game, sitting down with the rest of the Dev crew and saying:  "Awesome!  Fully armored figures dropping down from a ceiling.  The fans are gonna love it!  Good Job.  Make it happen, team.  I want this in every fight."

  <Ugh> Laidlaw claims to be an RPG fan.  I've seen him here, on this very forum, engaging people in long, drawn out discussions about  everything from Gaming theory to the Ultima series.  He always seemed very into it and really genuine.    So... what the F*ck happened?  There's *nothing*  RPGish  or remotely  mature about  ceiling spawning armored figures.    Was  he intentionally trying to mock the RPG genre  and all its fans with DA2?   Because if he was, then he did a great job, and my response to him is:  UP YOURS.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 avril 2011 - 11:13 .

[Edli]

mdugger12 wrote...

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

[Shazzie]

LAIDLAW: "I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly."

And what does Hard get me, exactly, aside from increasing the amount that I have to slog through the ridiculously excessive combat filled with parachuting ninjas and teleporting mages? I played on Hard. It did not make the game more fun. It made it more annoying, in the long run, because OMG ANOTHER WAVE.

'Dumbed down' and 'streamlined' are not criticisms re: combat. Not exactly. Due to the fact that combat is the majority of the game, I suppose it could be seen as a straight-up criticism of combat, but no, we're talking about all the stuff you removed to make room for more of your 'awesome' combat.

Turning the difficulty to Hard does not remove the [find and pick up a corpse, magically know to bring corpse to someone, magically know exactly where to go, bring corpse to NPC and get random, completely ill-fitting response of 'Oh silly me, I thought I would never see that again!']. Playing on Hard does not let me talk to my companions when they don't have quests for me. Playing on Hard does not give me a living, breathing, active world to be a part of. Playing on Hard does not give me more story. Playing on Hard does not give me any clue that when I click on a response on the dialogue wheel, my character is going to say something completely unwanted, unfitting, and unexpected.... I should have control over what my character says. Period. Playing on Hard does not stop the Tome of the Slumbering Elders, that precious, priceless elven artifact I get as a quest reward, into anything besides a cheap item that went straight into my Junk bin. Playing on Hard does not increase the game's depth. Playing on Hard does not magically turn this odd action game into a deep RPG. Sorry.

Modifié par Shazzie, 15 avril 2011 - 11:13 .

[Aramintai]

mdugger12 wrote...

They didn't neglect the core audience. They simply asked the core audience to share game with fans that aren't experienced with RPGs and expect certain things from their video games. They asked for an adult audience to act like adults and give other gamers a chance to love what they love. They didn't drastically change "your" franchise, they just made it available to new fans.

Then why the low critics and users scores everywhere and a whole Negative Material Plane out here? Casual gamers didn't like it either? And they did change it so much that I can't force myself to play it a second time and it's not even because of tons of annoying bugs.

Modifié par Aramintai, 15 avril 2011 - 11:15 .

[Bostur]

mdugger12 wrote...

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

I think you underestimate the amount of knowledge CoD players instinctively use. People who never saw a shooter wouldn't be able to jump straight in, it would take some learning to get used to. Thats not a bad thing though it can be enjoyable.

As an old school games I sometimes wonder how we managed to jump into those impossibly complex games in the 80s and 90s. How did we learn to play Elite, Civilization, Doom and Starcraft? We weren't born with that knowledge but somehow we managed to figure it out.

[Killer3000ad]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The framed narrative that they kept hyping up before release and "how Hawke became the champion of Kirkwall". Now that I think of it I just cringe because their storytelling methods just broke my interest in the story with massive time skips between acts. Like after gaining access to Kirkwall we get told Hawke makes a name for him/her-self over the year. And then another retarded timeskip between act 2 and 3 with no chance to influence the story.

Combat system more complex?? You mean more idiotic. Companion AI is noticeably stupider than ever. Better balanced? Like how does it make sense that my 2-hand Whirlwind/Scythe/Mighty Blow will one shot any of my nearby companions who stupidly run towards me but barely take a 1/3 of the enemy's HP? Retarded waves coming out of thin air.

[DeathStroke TZA]

Edli wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

QFT
This is key. We started the same way, we "true rpg fans" weren't born with knowledge of RPG's we played them, learned them. And thus we are happy when we are challenged!
Edli, you ser, are awesome.

[cotheer]

Edli wrote...

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

This^10000

[Guliver]

Too bad that instead of playing the game most of the people are just hating it. The problem isn't in the caves or illogical enemy waves, the game is great, but the problem is that it didn't meet expectations of some "core" fans and now they act like spoiled kids who didn't get their candy.

Bravo to Bioware. You really did a great job. I am enoying the game and now I am on my third playthrough.

[Killer3000ad]

Shazzie wrote...

LAIDLAW: "I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly."

And what does Hard get me, exactly, aside from increasing the amount that I have to slog through the ridiculously excessive combat filled with parachuting ninjas and teleporting mages? I played on Hard. It did not make the game more fun. It made it more annoying, in the long run, because OMG ANOTHER WAVE.

'Dumbed down' and 'streamlined' are not criticisms re: combat. Not exactly. Due to the fact that combat is the majority of the game, I suppose it could be seen as a straight-up criticism of combat, but no, we're talking about all the stuff you removed to make room for more of your 'awesome' combat.

Turning the difficulty to Hard does not remove the [find and pick up a corpse, magically know to bring corpse to someone, magically know exactly where to go, bring corpse to NPC and get random, completely ill-fitting response of 'Oh silly me, I thought I would never see that again!']. Playing on Hard does not let me talk to my companions when they don't have quests for me. Playing on Hard does not give me a living, breathing, active world to be a part of. Playing on Hard does not give me more story. Playing on Hard does not give me any clue that when I click on a response on the dialogue wheel, my character is going to say something completely unwanted, unfitting, and unexpected.... I should have control over what my character says. Period. Playing on Hard does not stop the Tome of the Slumbering Elders, that precious, priceless elven artifact I get as a quest reward, into anything besides a cheap item that went straight into my Junk bin. Playing on Hard does not increase the game's depth. Playing on Hard does not magically turn this odd action game into a deep RPG. Sorry.

QFT. "I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly." That will be Mike's next signature quote, next to,"Press a button and something awesome happens","think like a general, fight like a spartan".

[ejoslin]

mdugger12 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

So, given that...  Should CoD have the shooting elements simplified and the story elements enhanced to appeal to a wider audience?

The problem is, of course, that RPG fans like their RPGs.  It's a better idea to keep a game true to its genre but make it so good that more people buy it to try it out (like DAO, which is hugely successful despite being a fairly old-skool type RPG).

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

I never said that DA2 was GoW.  That's a strawman. They did make more of an action game with DA2, however.

I don't find shooters at ALL intuitive or easy.  I cannot grab a controller and just jump in (and I've tried -- since I'm not used to shooters they're not easy for me).  OTOH, I find RPGs incredibly easy to jump into.  Most start with a tutorial anyway, and in the case of DAO, it's a bit before you even begin fighting anyway.  

This is what is frustrating to me, as an RPG fan.  There are very VERY few quality RPGs out, and most of them are older.  And as a woman who likes playing a woman in games, they're even more rare.  DAO was so successful that it drew in people who normally don't play RPGs.  And many of those people want the game to be more like an action game, and are quite vocal about it.  And they're the ones who are listened to, not the RPG fans -- the core audience.

What's wrong with making a fantastic RPG that is so good that people who normally don't play RPGs buy it -- like DAO was.  Why don't the people who normally don't play RPGs but liked DAO accept that some of the things they don't like about it is because it's not a genre they prefer?  Why say that the RPG fans are wrong in wanting a sequel to one of the best RPGs ever made to be a true sequel retaining the same RPG elements?

Modifié par ejoslin, 15 avril 2011 - 11:21 .

[Aramintai]

cotheer wrote...

Edli wrote...

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

This^10000

Add +10000 from me too :wizard:

[Yrkoon]

mdugger12 wrote...

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre.

  That's Fine.

But lets keep in mind that producing some  strange  "hybrid"  (what they did with DA2) is not the solution to a  steep learning curve  (or whatever Laidlaw's silly explanation is).

Games are seperated into distinct Genres for a reason.  It's because gamers are an incredibly diverse crowd and have vastly different tastes and preferences to the types of games they like to play.  I don't  go around begging  for more complexity and "fantasy" in  First Person Shooters, so I don't see why I have to  suffer the FPS crowd's preferences  in my RPGs

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 avril 2011 - 11:27 .

[mdugger12]

Edli wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

No. Because CoD has mechanics and elements of gameplay that, even is you've never touched a FPS, is relatable to a game you've played before that point allowing you to jump in. It's not always that way with RPGs and it's unfair to alienate gamers that don't have years of experience with the genre. There are mechanics and gameplay elements in the genre that developed almost completely independent from what is seen and expected in the rest of the industry. Since "old school fans" were in the position to grow, learn, and master those elements over time they seem to want to alienate anybody who didn't.

Bioware isn't wrong here. They didn't turn DA 2 into God of War.

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

You're correct, up to a certain point. But we're not talking about learning the ins and outs of  "a game". We're talking about learning the ins and out of an entire genre. Not only that but accepting the little peripheral elements like a silent protagonist. Things that over the years you've learned to either love or live with.  Nobody wakes up one morning after playing different genres and says "I want to play a game where my character doesn't talk and I actually don't carry out any of the action. I just pause, issue commands, and watch".  Things like that don't really have a place outside of RPGs. But the worlds, and characters, and stories can be universally great. The sense of achievement you get by leveling up and getting stronger as the game progresses is great. And those are the elements of RPGs that Bioware wants to share with a larger market.

They didn't truly take anything away from the game by making it more accessible.

[DeathStroke TZA]

Guliver wrote...

Too bad that instead of playing the game most of the people are just hating it. The problem isn't in the caves or illogical enemy waves, the game is great, but the problem is that it didn't meet expectations of some "core" fans and now they act like spoiled kids who didn't get their candy.

Bravo to Bioware. You really did a great job. I am enoying the game and now I am on my third playthrough.

Interesting opinion you got there.. Except your wrong about some of the poeple in this thread your commenting on. I work at GameStop for instance, I had 11 people come in to buy Dragon Age 2, They noticed my tattoo's were gaming related and asked my opinion on Dragon Age 2, I gave them my honest review and told them that I may of course be biased as I was a avid DA:O lover (Got a tattoo for it on my left forearm) All 11 still bought the game, within the next week all but 3 came back in the store with thier copies asking for trade-ins. 3 Said they just didn't like it tnough to keep in thier collection, 1 Came in to say I was right and didn't ask for trade in because he had broke the disc in a fit of anger(lol) 1 had beat it enough that they were wanting money to put on a  Early Mass Efect 3 preorder. 1 said that he didn't like the gibs flying everywhere so one playthrough was enough, 1 said I was right about it entirely, And the girl said she thought it would get her into RPG's, which it failed to do because she said it was too simple ( I then asked what setting she played on and I was given "Hard. Twice")

Now I honest to god forgot where I was going with this. I think I'm going to lay down, I apologise if I offended anyone. (I would just delete this and not post but.. it took me so long to type..)

[ejoslin]

mdugger12 wrote...


You're correct, up to a certain point. But we're not talking about learning the ins and outs of  "a game". We're talking about learning the ins and out of an entire genre. Not only that but accepting the little peripheral elements like a silent protagonist. Things that over the years you've learned to either love or live with.  Nobody wakes up one morning after playing different genres and says "I want to play a game where my character doesn't talk and I actually don't carry out any of the action. I just pause, issue commands, and watch".  Things like that don't really have a place outside of RPGs. But the worlds, and characters, and stories can be universally great. The sense of achievement you get by leveling up and getting stronger as the game progresses is great. And those are the elements of RPGs that Bioware wants to share with a larger market.

They didn't truly take anything away from the game by making it more accessible.

They took a LOT away.  And yes, many people do NOT prefer RPGs.  But many people DO, and DAO and TW show that that group is actually quite large.  People who play RPGs really DO want to play RPGs.  If you don't, that's fine.  If a game is good enough that you'll play a game in a genre you normally wouldn't anyway, that's a win/win.  Making a game that is pretty good because there wasn't enough time because the entire game was completely redesigned -- yes, we lost out on a lot.  Had there not been such radical changes, more could have been put into the story elements.

[Kilshrek]

Actually I think I have the summary here.

RPG players wanting it to be more RPG is wrong.

Non-RPG players wanting it to be less RPG is right.

Equation solved.

[Guliver]

Aramintai wrote...

cotheer wrote...

Edli wrote...

Maybe we should stop considering gamers as beings that are incapable of learning. That's an offense to millions of players. The thing that I always liked more in rpgs was the complexity of gameplay. The fun is in learning how the combat works, how to build a proper team. How to overcome a challenge. If you remove that then what you're left with is a shallow game that doesn't offer any kind of complexity.

A game is first and foremost about overcoming the challenge and mastering it. You start as a noob, confused at what's going on and in the end after 70 hours you mastered it and beat the game. That's a sense of achievment that you do not get from a shallow and simple game. 

This^10000

Add +10000 from me too :wizard:

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.