843 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

You've got so many problems in there it seriously isn't worth my time to make a full post.  I'll just deal with the major three. [/quote]

Make a point. Or don't. I really don't care which. But these imaginary points which you aren't going to make are irrelevant.

[quote]
1.  Now would be a good time for you to realize Fallout wasn't based on D&D. [/quote]

Now would be a good time for you to point to where I said Fallout was based on D&D. And this still ignores the point that two of the games which you have listed as 'great' RPGs (BGII and PS:T) were literally copy and paste AD&D mechanics. If that is how we encourage 'greatness', clearly it is not something to be encouraged.  

[quote]
2.  Now would also be a good time to post your definitive survey of everyone who played those games clearly showing that none of their fun was derived from the character based system. [/quote]

I don't recall saying anywhere that you aren't allowed to enjoy a character based system. But if you really think what set Planescape 'apart' from other experiences was the numbers, well, you'd be one of the few I've seen posit that idea compared to the writing, narrative, characters, or ability to play through most of the experience without any actual combat as making it 'unique'. 

[quote]
3.  Now would be a *really* good time to note the huge difference between your "Roleplaying" (Which is actually defined as LARPs judging from your post) and an RPG.  Defined character vs you as the character,  two completely different concepts.[/quote] [/quote]

In which case, you're using the term quite loosely, since larping usually has other connotations attached to it.

The two concepts are also only as separate as you choose to make them. And for all your 'differences', how often is it for what you define as larping and an rpg to be found together? Hell, most of your 'great' RPGs fell well within this category, including everything out of Bioware from day 1.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 avril 2011 - 04:01 .

[jds1bio]

Gatt9 wrote...

Interesting link for you both...(And highly relevant)

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

The average gamer is 34 years old,  the most prolific are 40+.  Which makes the young'uns screaming that we >30 year olds don't count the bottom end of a minority. 

It also proves that not only is Bioware making the wrong choices,  but they already had the data that told them they were making the wrong choices beforehand.

Which really isn't a surprise,  Publishers are run by suits who are interested only in making the next blockbuster,  and they think the only way to do it is to make every game into one of a couple genres.

There's a reason why the Industry is showing double digit shrinkage,  and this would be a major part of it.  The Industry is trying to cater to what they think a demographic wants,  and the demographic they're trying to grab isn't even a major part of game sales,  never mind that it's highly unlikely that the younger crowd is any more thrilled about the sterilizing of the genres either.

Stats aren't everything, there's an issue of stamina also.  The game industry simply can't keep pumping out so many games and expect windfalls each time.  Microsoft got millions of people to buy Kinect (because people love dance games - just like at where Just Dance 2 ends up on the charts every month), but now Kinect just sits at home dormant because they haven't made more compelling games.  Game industry workers are continuously being burned out working on middle-of-the-road titles that "must also" have multiplayer, in order to meet deadlines that really no longer matter when the next game is coming out next week, and last week's multiplayer game has already been nullified by hackers and cheaters.

Also, game designers, developers, and publishers are so busy trying to show off at the ever-increasing number of conferences they attend, and trying to "meet" with gamers regularly online through diaries and such, that
they can't possibly be spending enough quality time making sure their games are released as bug-free as possible.  What movie director or music artist or painter or author would keep this kind of schedule while working on their creative works?  They tour when the creative work is ready for public consumption, not before.

Build a better RPG, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Modifié par jds1bio, 20 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
And this still ignores the point that two of the games which you have listed as 'great' RPGs (BGII and PS:T) were literally copy and paste AD&D mechanics. If that is how we encourage 'greatness', clearly it is not something to be encouraged.  

Isn't "copy and paste AD&D mechanics" an odd way to describe games that were supposed to actually be AD&D?

[Roxlimn]

Gatt9:

Just dropping in say that I'm 36 years old and that I like what they've done with combat animations in DA2. Between having more death animations on enemies or having more attack/move animations for companions, I prefer having more attack animations.

[cljqnsnyc]

kenelis wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

Interesting link for you both...(And highly relevant)

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

The average gamer is 34 years old,  the most prolific are 40+.  Which makes the young'uns screaming that we >30 year olds don't count the bottom end of a minority. 

It also proves that not only is Bioware making the wrong choices,  but they already had the data that told them they were making the wrong choices beforehand.

Which really isn't a surprise,  Publishers are run by suits who are interested only in making the next blockbuster,  and they think the only way to do it is to make every game into one of a couple genres.

There's a reason why the Industry is showing double digit shrinkage,  and this would be a major part of it.  The Industry is trying to cater to what they think a demographic wants,  and the demographic they're trying to grab isn't even a major part of game sales,  never mind that it's highly unlikely that the younger crowd is any more thrilled about the sterilizing of the genres either.

Be careful with those stats. You want to ask what they define as a "game". Angry Birds on your phone and The Sims: <insert activity> are included. I'd wager that a large percentage of phone "gamers" have never heard of Bioware.

Not saying that phone gamers don't play RPGs, just saying that I wouldn't use those demographics in a discussion about Bioware.

Bioware was founded in 1995 when I was 25. I'd say it's very relevant.....especially considering the averages of who actually purchases and plays games more often.  Take SWTOR for example. I'm willing to bet a good percentage of fans who saw "Star Wars" in 1977 like I did will be playing that game.  The ME series also appeals to this same crowd. It obviously was influenced by "Star Wars" and "Star Trek."

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 20 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[kenelis]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

kenelis wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

Interesting link for you both...(And highly relevant)

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

The average gamer is 34 years old,  the most prolific are 40+.  Which makes the young'uns screaming that we >30 year olds don't count the bottom end of a minority. 

It also proves that not only is Bioware making the wrong choices,  but they already had the data that told them they were making the wrong choices beforehand.

Which really isn't a surprise,  Publishers are run by suits who are interested only in making the next blockbuster,  and they think the only way to do it is to make every game into one of a couple genres.

There's a reason why the Industry is showing double digit shrinkage,  and this would be a major part of it.  The Industry is trying to cater to what they think a demographic wants,  and the demographic they're trying to grab isn't even a major part of game sales,  never mind that it's highly unlikely that the younger crowd is any more thrilled about the sterilizing of the genres either.

Be careful with those stats. You want to ask what they define as a "game". Angry Birds on your phone and The Sims: <insert activity> are included. I'd wager that a large percentage of phone "gamers" have never heard of Bioware.

Not saying that phone gamers don't play RPGs, just saying that I wouldn't use those demographics in a discussion about Bioware.

Bioware was founded in 1995 when I was 25. I'd say it's very relevant.....especially considering the averages of who actually purchases and plays games more often.  Take SWTOR for example. I'm willing to bet a good percentage of fans who saw "Star Wars" in 1977 like I did will be playing that game.  The ME series also appeals to this same crowd. It obviously was influenced by "Star Wars" and "Star Trek."

But you don't have numbers, at least nothing more concrete than that article. One of the points in the article states that 26% of people over 50 play games. That's great, but what are those people actually playing?

If 99% of that demographic plays Dragon Age, then Bioware has a reason for considering that age group. If 99% don't play anything more advanced than Angry Birds on their phones, then Bioware has very little reason to worry about them.

I'm in my mid-30's. I would love to see Bioware make another Baldur's Gate. But until somebody produces a survey on gaming demographics with proper game categorization (The Sims <> Dragon Age), I don't have much ammo to convince publishers/developers to cater to my gaming preferences.

Modifié par kenelis, 20 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[Kilshrek]

kenelis wrote...


But you don't have numbers, at least nothing more concrete than that article. One of the points in the article states that 26% of people over 50 play games. That's great, but what are those people actually playing?

If 99% of that demographic plays Dragon Age, then Bioware has a reason for considering that age group. If 99% don't play anything more advanced than Angry Birds on their phones, then Bioware has very little reason to worry about them.

I'm in my mid-30's. I would love to see Bioware make another Baldur's Gate. But until somebody produces a survey on gaming demographics with proper game categorization (The Sims <> Dragon Age), I don't have much ammo to convince publishers/developers to cater to my gaming preferences.

Why do you think every other game out there is trying to be a CoD clone? Kids old enough to hold a controller or mouse are playing CoD, a generalisation maybe but no lie or exaggeration I'm sure. That's where the money is, that's why every developer and publisher wants a piece of that pie. I'm 25, I'd love another Baldur's Gate or Fallout (the isometric view, Black Isle game, not that rubbish Bethesda tries to pass off as Fallout), but who'll buy that sort of game? There isn't enough instant gratification(as Mike expounded on in early interviews as well "You'll see the results of your decisions immediately, instead of some texty thing in the epilogue" not his exact words but something similar) in those sort of games, not enough appeal and not enough of a market for it any more.

I don't have any numbers to give, but just an observation, if the market was there why aren't there games that cater to it? If there is even half the size of the CoD market looking for another Fallout or BG, wouldn't a developer try to put something out there that caters to that demand? Instead everything remotely related to "RPG" these days has Action slapped in front of it. It gives me a sad.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 20 avril 2011 - 06:10 .

[cljqnsnyc]

kenelis wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

kenelis wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

Interesting link for you both...(And highly relevant)

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

The average gamer is 34 years old,  the most prolific are 40+.  Which makes the young'uns screaming that we >30 year olds don't count the bottom end of a minority. 

It also proves that not only is Bioware making the wrong choices,  but they already had the data that told them they were making the wrong choices beforehand.

Which really isn't a surprise,  Publishers are run by suits who are interested only in making the next blockbuster,  and they think the only way to do it is to make every game into one of a couple genres.

There's a reason why the Industry is showing double digit shrinkage,  and this would be a major part of it.  The Industry is trying to cater to what they think a demographic wants,  and the demographic they're trying to grab isn't even a major part of game sales,  never mind that it's highly unlikely that the younger crowd is any more thrilled about the sterilizing of the genres either.

Be careful with those stats. You want to ask what they define as a "game". Angry Birds on your phone and The Sims: <insert activity> are included. I'd wager that a large percentage of phone "gamers" have never heard of Bioware.

Not saying that phone gamers don't play RPGs, just saying that I wouldn't use those demographics in a discussion about Bioware.

Bioware was founded in 1995 when I was 25. I'd say it's very relevant.....especially considering the averages of who actually purchases and plays games more often.  Take SWTOR for example. I'm willing to bet a good percentage of fans who saw "Star Wars" in 1977 like I did will be playing that game.  The ME series also appeals to this same crowd. It obviously was influenced by "Star Wars" and "Star Trek."

But you don't have numbers, at least nothing more concrete than that article. One of the points in the article states that 26% of people over 50 play games. That's great, but what are those people actually playing?

If 99% of that demographic plays Dragon Age, then Bioware has a reason for considering that age group. If 99% don't play anything more advanced than Angry Birds on their phones, then Bioware has very little reason to worry about them.

I'm in my mid-30's. I would love to see Bioware make another Baldur's Gate. But until somebody produces a survey on gaming demographics with proper game categorization (The Sims <> Dragon Age), I don't have much ammo to convince publishers/developers to cater to my gaming preferences.

It is indeed a very concrete study performed by an organization that researches this industry, not merely an article or opinion piece/editorial. I'm sure their numbers are real and factual. It would be similar to suggesting that The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences isn't well informed about the film industry.

There was no distinction made for people playing phone games or rpgs or any other specific game genre for that matter. It was a general study meant to cover gaming as a whole. It's what they do. My theory about age and it's connection to certain game genres is strictly my opinion based on what makes sense to me considering my own experiences as a gamer at age 41. You can be sure companies such as EA are very much aware of specific demographics, the whos and whys. Whether or not they have acted upon any of this information in the past or present is anyones guess.


While we're on the subject of research and studies....

Off topic...

Forming focus groups designed to support an agenda...then referring to this as factual data when it suits a purpose (80% of DAO players never made it past Ostagar) isn't the way to go about selling games of any genre to any audience. People aren't that guliable, not in this day and age. It may even backfire when we as consumers are asked to accept information that defies all logic and reason. A game that an overwhelming majority of players couldn't finish does not sell 3 to 4 million copies and most certainly is not highly recommended by anyone.

Bioware is held to a much higher standard and should know better than trying to pass information as unbelievable as this. I've posted about this before but it really bothers me when I read statements like this from Bioware.

Back on topic....

Who knows? Maybe we'll both be lucky and Bioware will take a que from this current situation, a position they have never been in before with any of it's games...a polarized fanbase, growing mistrust, etc....and learn from it. I would certainly hope that the good doctors would want to reminds us all of Bioware's mission statement.....

“BioWare’s vision is to deliver the best story-driven games in the world.”

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 20 avril 2011 - 02:09 .

[Melca36]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Macrake wrote...

I'm 24 and been here since bg1. Late thirties whaddafack? Their core audience is 18-35.

Other than that you're pretty much correct.

This may be hard for you to grasp but older gamers are a GROWING demographic.

My husband is 42 and is a gamer. He's part of the atari/commodore generation.

Is there a law saying older people are not allowed to game? <_<

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

We are the pioneers.

But of course some of the youngsters probably resent us. 

[Melca36]

erynnar wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Macrake wrote...

I'm 24 and been here since bg1. Late thirties whaddafack? Their core audience is 18-35.

Other than that you're pretty much correct.

This may be hard for you to grasp but older gamers are a GROWING demographic.

My husband is 42 and is a gamer. He's part of the atari/commodore generation.

Is there a law saying older people are not allowed to game? <_<

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

I am 40 and I too remember Atari...I remember Pong! I was four years old and beating the adults. LOL!

We had pong too! Then we had an Atari 2600 and moved up to a 5200. I was playing text based rpgs on the Commodre 64. 

[Melca36]

Gatt9 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Macrake wrote...

I'm 24 and been here since bg1. Late thirties whaddafack? Their core audience is 18-35.

Other than that you're pretty much correct.

This may be hard for you to grasp but older gamers are a GROWING demographic.

My husband is 42 and is a gamer. He's part of the atari/commodore generation.

Is there a law saying older people are not allowed to game? <_<

This is absolutely true!  I'm 41 and also remember the Atari days.  Infact, according to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), we 40 year olds  purchase more games on average. The actual average age of gamers is 18 to 49 and 26% are over 50.

Who would have thought?

Interesting link for you both...(And highly relevant)

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

The average gamer is 34 years old,  the most prolific are 40+.  Which makes the young'uns screaming that we >30 year olds don't count the bottom end of a minority. 

It also proves that not only is Bioware making the wrong choices,  but they already had the data that told them they were making the wrong choices beforehand.

Which really isn't a surprise,  Publishers are run by suits who are interested only in making the next blockbuster,  and they think the only way to do it is to make every game into one of a couple genres.

There's a reason why the Industry is showing double digit shrinkage,  and this would be a major part of it.  The Industry is trying to cater to what they think a demographic wants,  and the demographic they're trying to grab isn't even a major part of game sales,  never mind that it's highly unlikely that the younger crowd is any more thrilled about the sterilizing of the genres either.

That certainly explains the cartoony darkspawn and other elements.

[AAHook2]

I'm in my early 30s and I've grown up playing video games. Everyone I know has played or still plays video games. I've been playing video games since I was 6. For many of us, this is a part of our lives we're not likely to grow out of. Trix aren't just for kids anymore, silly rabbit.
I was the one who taught my nephew how to play video games. He's turned out to be a pretty good player of all types of genres. He plays Black Ops, but it's far from his favorite game. He's very good at Halo Reach, which he touts as his primary game focus. Then again, he's happily sat down and played through co-op games like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1&2. He played through Champions of Norrath with me. He LOVED those games. We even have little inside jokes about Lord Vanherost from Champions. He's proficient at fighting games like Street Fighter 3 and 4. he can play adventure games. We'd have long bouts playing Smash Bros. He's a well rounded gamer, and guess who educated him about video games and who he takes his cues from. Me. He doesn't have a very good relationship with his father and I've basically raised him since he was born, so we're very close.
What a lot of game studios have failed to realize is that for the most part, the young gamer takes his or her cues about liking games from the generation that bore them. Guess who is purchasing their games, giving them money to get their own games. They obtain their games through the approval of a generation that was raised on video games. Gamers 30 years old + buy games for themselves as much as they buy them for their children. If I don't like a game my nephew plays, I tell him and for the most part he listens to me in all seriousness. My opinion on games matters a lot to him. I told him that I don't like Call of Duty, and though he occasionally plays it, he pretty shares my opinion about it. He plays it mostly because his friends from school invite him to, but he's much more interested in Halo Reach.
Truth is that when he tried playing Origins, he found it a little too sophisticated for him. He says that he would rather watch me play through the game because when it comes time for him to make some decisions, he finds it hard decide what he wants to do. He admits that the game may be too sophisticated for him at age 12. Still, he managed to complete Origins up to the point of clearing Ostagar and Lothering. He finished Redcliffe up to having to head off to the Circle, decided to side track to Orzammar and since then hasn't continued. He says he plans to eventually, and I believe he will.
He played through Dragon Age 2 and said he enjoyed it. Even so, he states plainly that he thinks Origins was better. The reason he finished Dragon Age 2 was because it's a much shorter game.

Bioware has to come to realize that gamers at this point aren't going to demand less sophisticated games as time goes on, but more engrossing, immersive games that hold a lot of content.

[abaris]

AAHook2 wrote...

Bioware has to come to realize that gamers at this point aren't going to demand less sophisticated games as time goes on, but more engrossing, immersive games that hold a lot of content.

You can't generalise that either.

I'm in my late 40ies and when I grew up, there wasn't such a thing as a personal computer. I cam to video gaming after having played pen and paper adventures for quite some time. And yes, when it comes to my tastes, make the games as immersive and complex as possible. Especially when it comes to RPGs, strategy games, Flight Simulators and Racers. That's pretty much all I'm interested in.

But games cover the whole demographic, starting with preteens and probably ending shortly before the grave. The one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you, is that watering down the contents to appeal to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem to be the smartes decision. There are people out there who want it quick and simple, but there are also people out there, who want complexity. The all in one concept simply doesn't work out, since both groups won't be satisfied.

[Dracotamer]

I agree 100% with the OP. We will have to wait and see what Bioware decides. In my case I hope it is sticking with all of us the loyal fans who made Bioware the successful gaming company they are by purchasing their amazing games and word of mouth advertising.

[nicethugbert]

BobSmith101 wrote...
It has "tactical" combat, but at a speed that is not comfortable for many people who like tactical combat.

Pause Button, it's there for a reason.  Although, if people have a neurological issue such that fast movement makes their head hurt, then there is no help for them except a speed adjustment option.

BW should have had enough foresight for it's own good to realize that if they wanted to satisfy their current customer base and new customer base then it would have to provide the player with the options to make the game familiar in crucial aspects such as attack speed, movement speed in combat, movement speed outside of combat.

The speed increase relative to previous RPGs, especially NWN2, is my favorite aspect of DA2 that deviates from previous RPGs.  If it wasn't for that difference I would not have bought DA2.  I would have continued with NWN2, which is what I'll be going back to since the DA series installments have no longevity on their own.

[nicethugbert]

Shadowbanner wrote...
So basically DA2 was streamlined or dumbed-down to accomodate it to mainstream console players who, apparently under the eyes of EA and BioWare, prefer simpler action games that require less thinking and more button-mashing.

That's funny because my 9 year old nephew, a Xbox button masher and COD junky extraordinaire, does not like either DA2 or ME2, et. al.  He rushed through the MW2 campaign.  He unlocks and cheats with the help of his little friends every chance he gets.  Doens't explore dialog trees, just gets them out of the way.

So, I don't see how BW dumbed down DA2 except if you compare the entire DA series to BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Clearly, DA is dumbed down compared to any D&D based game such as BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Yet, DA:O is Teh Awesome Sauce On Roids even though DA:O nd DA2 have largely the same ruleset and DA2 is a tweaked version of DA:O.

So, all it takes is just a little speed increase and implied dialog instead of explicit dialog and the world ends, it's not a true RPG, blah blah blah, oh noes.

If BW really wanted the COD crowd, they screwed up royally by not having multiplayer in DA2 because that is all those players play once they get the campaign over with.  How could such a glaring omission happen?

Modifié par nicethugbert, 20 avril 2011 - 10:35 .

[AkiKishi]

nicethugbert wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It has "tactical" combat, but at a speed that is not comfortable for many people who like tactical combat.

Pause Button, it's there for a reason.  Although, if people have a neurological issue such that fast movement makes their head hurt, then there is no help for them except a speed adjustment option.

BW should have had enough foresight for it's own good to realize that if they wanted to satisfy their current customer base and new customer base then it would have to provide the player with the options to make the game familiar in crucial aspects such as attack speed, movement speed in combat, movement speed outside of combat.

The speed increase relative to previous RPGs, especially NWN2, is my favorite aspect of DA2 that deviates from previous RPGs.  If it wasn't for that difference I would not have bought DA2.  I would have continued with NWN2, which is what I'll be going back to since the DA series installments have no longevity on their own.

FIFA (an EA game) has a speed slider it's not like it's a new idea.

How many characters do you control in NWN2 ? 

[nicethugbert]

BobSmith101 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It has "tactical" combat, but at a speed that is not comfortable for many people who like tactical combat.

Pause Button, it's there for a reason.  Although, if people have a neurological issue such that fast movement makes their head hurt, then there is no help for them except a speed adjustment option.

BW should have had enough foresight for it's own good to realize that if they wanted to satisfy their current customer base and new customer base then it would have to provide the player with the options to make the game familiar in crucial aspects such as attack speed, movement speed in combat, movement speed outside of combat.

The speed increase relative to previous RPGs, especially NWN2, is my favorite aspect of DA2 that deviates from previous RPGs.  If it wasn't for that difference I would not have bought DA2.  I would have continued with NWN2, which is what I'll be going back to since the DA series installments have no longevity on their own.

FIFA (an EA game) has a speed slider it's not like it's a new idea.

How many characters do you control in NWN2 ? 

Typically, 4 to 6.  But, that can be changed in the console if the module options was set to allow it.  The largest party I played in SP in NWN2 was 10 or 12.  It was great.

[Bostur]

nicethugbert wrote...

So, I don't see how BW dumbed down DA2 except if you compare the entire DA series to BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Clearly, DA is dumbed down compared to any D&D based game such as BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Yet, DA:O is Teh Awesome Sauce On Roids even though DA:O nd DA2 have largely the same ruleset and DA2 is a tweaked version of DA:O.

So, all it takes is just a little speed increase and implied dialog instead of explicit dialog and the world ends, it's not a true RPG, blah blah blah, oh noes.

There were a few other changes made to DA2. Encounter design, world design, UI changes. Most of those are some pretty massive simplifications.

In the player reviews on these forums people have made long bulleted lists of things they thought worked poorly. Its a bit more than just speed increase and dialogue choices.

[Macrake]

Melca36 wrote...

Macrake wrote...

I'm 24 and been here since bg1. Late thirties whaddafack? Their core audience is 18-35.

Other than that you're pretty much correct.

This may be hard for you to grasp but older gamers are a GROWING demographic.

My husband is 42 and is a gamer. He's part of the atari/commodore generation.

Is there a law saying older people are not allowed to game? <_<

Why would that be hard for me to grasp?

Your husband is 42 and a gamer. Congratulations?

No, there isn't any law saying that.

[AAHook2]

abaris wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Bioware has to come to realize that gamers at this point aren't going to demand less sophisticated games as time goes on, but more engrossing, immersive games that hold a lot of content.

You can't generalise that either.

I'm in my late 40ies and when I grew up, there wasn't such a thing as a personal computer. I cam to video gaming after having played pen and paper adventures for quite some time. And yes, when it comes to my tastes, make the games as immersive and complex as possible. Especially when it comes to RPGs, strategy games, Flight Simulators and Racers. That's pretty much all I'm interested in.

But games cover the whole demographic, starting with preteens and probably ending shortly before the grave. The one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you, is that watering down the contents to appeal to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem to be the smartes decision. There are people out there who want it quick and simple, but there are also people out there, who want complexity. The all in one concept simply doesn't work out, since both groups won't be satisfied.

That is true. It comes down to what Bioware decides is to be the kind of games they make. Do they make watered down quick and easy, streamlined games or do they stay true to their original asthetic in Origins?

It was Origins and the (some might say surprising) success of that title that made it possible for Dragon Age 2 to be made. Why turn away from that formula as if it were a problem?
It would be like Coca Cola announcing that they are going to change their recipe to something bigger and better and then the suits deciding behind closed doors that they should make coke taste more like pepsi, slap a new design on the label and expect people not to notice that the soda goes flat within 5 minutes of opening a can.

Look, I think most fans of the first game were expecting everything that they loved about it to be in the second game. I don't think this is a generalization. It's a fact. Who would expect less from a sequel if they weren't in a pessimistic mindset in the first place.  Most people were pretty excited about Dragon Age 2 until the first leaks about there not being a choice of race came out.
If only we knew how far it would go... Maybe we should drag Varric in and question him about what happened to this game.

[Slayer299]

No, because he'd probably exaggerate his story about what the *real* events about the development were

[Xena_Shepard]

This was an amazingly excellent and detailed post, I applaud you, sir.

Though, I have two things to add. It's a little inaccurate to say all RPG lovers are old. I'm 19 and I've loved RPGs and BioWare ever since I played KOTOR when I was 14.

Also, one of the reasons it's not a good idea to screw your hardcore fans to cater to casuals is that casuals are, well, casual they don't stick with a company out of loyalty and flow with the gaming wind. We hardcore fans (and ex-fans in my case) would've bought a BioWare game simply because the logo was on the box, we knew that BioWare stood for quality and excellence. Now that's not the case, and they've screwed themselves six different ways by screwing their true fans to cater to people who won't stick with them and move onto the next fad.

Just my input...

[nicethugbert]

Bostur wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

So, I don't see how BW dumbed down DA2 except if you compare the entire DA series to BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Clearly, DA is dumbed down compared to any D&D based game such as BG, NWN1, NWN2, etc.  Yet, DA:O is Teh Awesome Sauce On Roids even though DA:O nd DA2 have largely the same ruleset and DA2 is a tweaked version of DA:O.

So, all it takes is just a little speed increase and implied dialog instead of explicit dialog and the world ends, it's not a true RPG, blah blah blah, oh noes.

There were a few other changes made to DA2. Encounter design, world design, UI changes. Most of those are some pretty massive simplifications.

In the player reviews on these forums people have made long bulleted lists of things they thought worked poorly. Its a bit more than just speed increase and dialogue choices.

You are totally dodging the fact that DA:O is dumbed down compared to it's predecesors, yet, no one around here says that.  People who love DA:O, love a dumbed down game.

[Dracotamer]

I said DA:O was a dumbed down version of BG and NWN etc. when it came out, but I actually feel the changes made there helped the game.