182 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Emulation City, population: Me.

[neppakyo]

Hah!, You sneaky evil twin.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

neppakyo wrote...

Hah!, You sneaky evil twin.

Oh I'd probably buy a copy off eBay for like $5 because they're dirt cheap and I don't want to feel bad, but I don't have an SNES or PSX anymore. Plus those games would look outright awful on my HDTV.




Anyway, to somewhat return to the topic.

I don't get it.

He praises Origins for being an "old-school RPG", then claims that the RPGs are not self sufficient... despite ignoring that Origins is Bioware's best selling game.

Autolycus wrote...

Just more proof in my opinion that the game was totally consolised....

Achievements are for (in the main) the younger console generation of gamer, so they can woo their potential love interest at school and impress their mates with their unbelievably high gamer score *rolls eyes* (yes I'm a cynic)....

Collecting data based on those is utterly pointless, mad and lacks any business sense, as PC gamers do not collect 'scores' based on their achievements, nor do they get spiffy little prizes awarded to them by MS/SONY......

Witcher 2 was consolised compared to Witcher 1. I could tell that the game's control scheme was good for a gamepad.

I'm miffed about the idea of console gamers being blamed for everything. I mean, it's really a matter of how publishers and developers look at their audience than any actual facts about console players.

EA and Bioware stereotyped console players as the "duh-duh" type casual gamers and tried to cater more to that group than with Origins. Or making RPGs for people who don't like/play RPGs. But I don't think it's fair to blame consoles or console players for that.

CDPR didn't. So regardless of what platforms you want your game to be in, what's important is how you see your audience.

The ironic thing is that the type of audience EA wants would be completely put off by all the "talking" in Dragon Age 2.

There was a thread of this poor kid doing his review on Dragon Age 2 and was totally blasted by people here. Funny, yet sad at the same time. And, IMO, completely representative of the stereotype that console gamers get.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 24 mai 2011 - 06:46 .

[TheTranzor]

Autolycus wrote...

Just more proof in my opinion that the game was totally consolised....

Achievements are for (in the main) the younger console generation of gamer, so they can woo their potential love interest at school and impress their mates with their unbelievably high gamer score *rolls eyes* (yes I'm a cynic)....

Collecting data based on those is utterly pointless, mad and lacks any business sense, as PC gamers do not collect 'scores' based on their achievements, nor do they get spiffy little prizes awarded to them by MS/SONY......

I'm a console player myself and have been since the Atari 2600... and for the life of me I don't get the whole achievement thing.

All the achievements prove is that you have spent way too much money collecting a crap-ton of games... you don't even need an iota of skill in order to collect 90% of them.  They're really idiotic and I can't believe anyone really says "Achievements, I HAS DEM!" to their friends. 

[neppakyo]

mrcrusty wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

Hah!, You sneaky evil twin.

Oh I'd probably buy a copy off eBay for like $5 because they're dirt cheap and I don't want to feel bad, but I don't have an SNES or PSX anymore. Plus those games would look outright awful on my HDTV.




Anyway, to somewhat return to the topic.

I don't get it.

He praises Origins for being an "old-school RPG", then claims that the RPGs are not self sufficient... despite ignoring that Origins is Bioware's best selling game.

Autolycus wrote...

Just more proof in my opinion that the game was totally consolised....

Achievements are for (in the main) the younger console generation of gamer, so they can woo their potential love interest at school and impress their mates with their unbelievably high gamer score *rolls eyes* (yes I'm a cynic)....

Collecting data based on those is utterly pointless, mad and lacks any business sense, as PC gamers do not collect 'scores' based on their achievements, nor do they get spiffy little prizes awarded to them by MS/SONY......

Witcher 2 was consolised compared to Witcher 1.

I'm miffed about the idea of console gamers being blamed for everything. I mean, it's really a matter of how publishers and developers look at their audience than any actual facts about console players.

EA and Bioware stereotyped console players as the "duh-duh" type casual gamers and tried to cater more to that group than with Origins. Or making RPGs for people who don't like/play RPGs. But I don't think it's fair to blame consoles or console players for that.

I still have a snes and a ps2 (ps1 games work fine on it) and I do own chrono trigger and their ilk, but I still have the emulators hehe. Looks better on the PC then my HD plasma tv.

I also blame that 'metadata' they collect for the abomination of DA2. Imho, it was severely misused. How they could take their best selling game ever, and go f**k it up I'll never understand. 

So, are DA2 sales still lower than a 90 year old guy's ballsack?

[Dio Demon]

neppakyo wrote...

So, are DA2 sales still lower than a 90 year old guy's ballsack?

Okay that is kinda disturbing I'm speechless ...  MARK THIS MOMENT ON THE CALENDAR

[PlumPaul93]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Crazy Eyed One wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

So, are DA2 sales still lower than a 90 year old guy's ballsack?

Okay that is kinda disturbing I'm speechless ...  MARK THIS MOMENT ON THE CALENDAR

Lol!

haha that was actually very funny well done.

Modifié par PlumPaul82393, 24 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Nepp + Thread Title = win.

Dragon Age 2's sales - Decline of the old man's balls.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, I regret suggesting you use that.

It's weird as hell.

[neppakyo]

Thats creepier than the original, Ali. You should of used this one instead

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

It's creepiness is over 9000!

Anyways, to get back on topic, I disagree with the article. First off, it's woefully inconsistent when defining a "traditional RPG", it mentions Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age: Origins and Final Fantasy XIII all as traditional RPGs, despite the fact that all 3 represent wildly different genres. To top that off, both Origins and Final Fantasy XIII were financial successes with Origins selling an approximate 4+ million, and with FFXIII reaching possibly over 6 million in sales, utterly crushing his point that RPGs are no longer self sufficient as their own genre.

So not only  is he inconsistent with his points, they are just flat out wrong.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 24 mai 2011 - 07:29 .

[Zanallen]

I was hoping for a Balls are Inert reference. Son, I am disappoint.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oh it undoubtedly will, just disputing that consolised always = bad. It depends on what they "consolise" and for what reason.

In the case of achievements, I personally think they are utterly pointless, but there are people who will play for the achievements and boast about it later.

Personally, I see it as a sign of failure if your game needs to reward the player just for playing in order to keep them interested. But yes, I also find it ridiculous that people actually consider it a good data source.

[Wolfborn Son]

Winterfly wrote...

They listen to a Xbox360....page....wow....They sure are known for their great RPGs and that is why people buy that console. Right? Oh the irony...

I might be a minority, but Dragon Age: Origins was more or less the main selling point for the 360 for me... I would have preferred to play in on the PC but frankly, it was far cheaper to buy a console than update my computer so I could run it. In fact, I used to consider myself a PC gamer, more so than a console gamer (although I always played both) until it became to expensive to keep updating... Especially when I've got other hobbies, including record collecting and table top gaming.

Anyway, the real thing that confused me about this topic is people saying that exploding enemies was an attempt to appear to action gamers...?

Baldur's Gate would like to speak to you. Personally, I felt that it was more a nod to that than anything else.

[_Aine_]

Games are simplified now because a good majority of casual gamers don't want anything overly difficult. MMO's have gone the same way - remember EQ older gamers? When you died you died - you lost everything you had on your person and had to head back on corpse runs to get back your stuff. Whine, whine, whine, people did so they took that away. Suddenly from all sides people sighed, nostalgic about the loss of difficulty.

I do miss the days when there was a difficulty curve to playing. When you had to use strategy and tactical planning in order to succeed. I miss the days when dying meant something. (And yes, I know about games like Demon;s Souls where to a good extent that is still true... will have to try it.)

But, I think that is more a statement about games just wanting to become "popular" and huge money makers - so to do that they have to become the middle ground that everyone will tolerate. Do I like that? Not especially. Eventually that middle ground will get pretty old, regardless what the "theme" or setting is. It will take several years mind you.

Witcher 2: I don't actually consider it a true  (classic anyway) RPG simply because you have a fixed protagonist. BUT ( oh look, it's a but) they did certain roleplay elements very, very well. Better in fact than DA2 did. Which ones? IMO: keeping the story coherent and fluid, keeping the player immersed in the game, atmosphere, and choice and consequence (or the illusion thereof). Part of roleplaying to be is a certain level of customization and that is not merely appearance or personality based. What type of a skillset I use is also included, being able to develop that as I see fit, and being able to choose truly different paths as I play and then the world changing (or appearing to) because of my actions.

I see the limitations, and yes I think they are limitations, imposed by creating a more open-ended setting like that. the more you throw in there in terms of possibility, the more they have to decide what to show and what to cut. There is not an infinite budget, monetarily or time wise.

I personally felt DA2 was a bit ME2-ized which I felt didn't work for it. Why? Because ME2 was basically a RP-shooter - essentially a space story ( cold, sterile and clean works for space, more than earthly life which sterility in environment doesn't fit realistically) with guns, and shooter-like combat. DA was neither of those things. The "mood" of the change just didn't fit it as well. Anyway, too hard to explain the impression, so I will just stop at that. I don't consider either DA2 or Witcher2 as an RPG, really. Action with RPG elements sure. But then, I do think TW2 did better in letting me feel like I have some say in the storyline, and this is emotional investment aside. I am talking strictly functionary changes in the storyline. *shrug*

One day, someone will find the balance and bring back a true RPG. It may be a hit and it may not. In fact, I hope it isn't, because as soon as people taste success, they general want more and bigger success. And to do that, they dilute what made them unique and different, because being unique and different is no guarantee of mainstream success. Ah well, it is a good thing in general we have a lot of great GAMES out there to choose from. Sure they may not be the classic RPG some of us remember and even love, but some are incredibly enjoyable all the same.

Modifié par shantisands, 24 mai 2011 - 01:44 .

[Drachasor]

DA:O was proof that "old school" RPGs still have a large market. It's just that the people in charge of Bioware (as well as EA) decided they didn't want to make RPGs like that anymore. They wanted to spend a lot less time on the games (understandable), and try to get a much larger playerbase. Hence, they aren't even trying to make the sort of games they once did.

[ShakeZoohla]

well... ya know what this means. they're just gonna have to come up with something new.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUNNNNNN!

anywho.. for me, the witcher is where it's at right now. its got the "darker" feeling i was originally expecting from dragon age. i think it goes somewhere between oblivion and mass effect for gameplay, but the mood is much more ominous than either of them.

I think that dragon age gets the freedom of choice part down better, what with getting to pick your species and all, but the witcher just nails the atmosphere. and geralt is a great char depending on your choice. also the combat totally works.

different cups of tea i guess.