201 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Did you save his mum?

Heh You bet! Never leave a damsel distressed. And besides, I really wanted that Tunnel Snakes Jacket.

Yes its true. I'm motivated by fashion.

I saved the mum. But I only did it for the xp. Just to be clear about that.
On topic: A non-gamer was always going to struggle with any rpg, so I personally do not think that making the game more accessible is the answer.

[Marionetten]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So I gather from your post that you emerged from the womb holding one of these, then?

More likely he played simplistic games and then gradually moved up to more complex games instead of asking for every single game created to be super accessible from the get-go. You cannot cater to everyone. It's just not going to happen and I don't see why BioWare should waste more resources on trying to cater to non-gamers when they can barely appeal to gamers as things stand. They need to come back strong with Dragon Age III and that means focusing their design efforts. If they don't we're just going to get another Dragon Age II.

While the thought is nice it's not particularly realistic.

[Realmzmaster]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

shantisands wrote...

What are those exactly Ali?  How do they differ?  

Basically the G.O.A.T. was an in game aptitude test your character took while in school in Fallout. It was completely done in game. You sat at your desk, answered really silly questions on the test, and then turned it into the teacher to determine what your character's career would be. The career listed was entirely for laughs (I often got 'Marriage Councellor') but secretly it determined which skills your character would enjoy focusing on.

It was a great approach to character generation, and at the very end of the intro you could choose to ignore all the results and build your character in a more 'traditional' sheet based method if you wanted.

Basically G.O.A.T is using a idea that came from Ultima IV:Quest of the Avatar by in 1985. The gamer was asked about a series of ethical dilemmas via tarot cards that determined the character's stats in Ultima IV.

[Brockololly]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I would like a system in which the game asks you if you were a new player unfamiliar with RPGs or the series. In that case it invokes a number of in-game messages to explain the background or game mechanics more thoroughly. That way character creation could be at the start of the game. The way it is implemented now is annoying for people like me who are already familiar with the game.

Yup- If devs want to have the super handholding option I almost think they should look at sports games like Madden, where you can have it pick a play for you if you want. But its just an option.

I understand where Laidlaw is coming from with wanting a low barrier to entry, but the way DA2 did things early on had many issues, IMO:

1.) You had little to no vested interest in why Super Hawke was killing a bunch of monsters from a story perspective. Personally, I think this is one of DA2's biggest overall problems, where you're just killing crap without knowing why you're killing stuff or what the significance of killing the stuff is or even having the option to kill stuff.

I know they wanted to get you right in the combat, but thats the problem when you have no idea why you're fighting, who you are and what the hell is going on. In an RPG, the combat generally needs some context to have it hold much weight. So while an individual fight may be interesting tactically or gameplay wise, why I'm fighting, who I'm fighting, and the context surrounding the fight is just as important.

I'd liken it to a Total War campaign battle versus just a single skirmish- if you're just playing a single battle, it lacks context and its mostly done for the tactical RTS gameplay. But when you have the campaign map open and you get into a battle, you have a broader context for the significance of the battle and why you're fighting. So a mundane battle on the more micro RTS level might be super significant given the campaign map macro level in that it could wipe out an enemy nation. Yet, I felt too often DA2 either gives really flimsy context for the battles or doesn't at all.

2.) Really, I don't think devs need to simplify or dumb things down for new people, they just have to do a better job explaining things- and sometimes that means getting into nitty gritty detail. I think way too many developers seem to think gamers are complete slobbering fools that can't wake up and tie their shoes in the morning without getting distracted. Sure, you need to make things interesting to keep people engaged, but I think thats where you have to make a strong first impression and hook the player with something like impressive graphics/visuals or an interesting story that the player takes notice of- that stuff can be appreciated by most anyone regardless if they know what an RPG is or not. Then once the player is interested, ease into the gameplay. I mean, I know some of my friends that have little to no interest in RPGs that once showed the opening military camp in The WItcher 2 were blown away and engaged by the game just by the visuals- that was enough to hook them and get them interested in how the rest of the mechanics of the game worked.

I don't think DA2 did a decent job of that as it just chucks you in combat, not only with little context but also in a fairly drab looking area visually.

3.) I think starting with some more involved character creation can act as an easy hook to keep the player's attention.  Not the Diablo-esque pick a Hawke screen of DA2, but even if it was something similar but add in the face customization- something anyone can do pretty easily. And have that sort of thing integrated in the story/plot like the Fallout games do it. That way it doesn't seem as abstract in just picking stuff out of a menu, but you're still "playing" the game when fiddling with the stats.So stuff like Fallout's SPECIAL or the GOAT is a good example.

[Sister Helen]

Was it one of the Ultimas that had a Tarot card reading where the cards you picked and questions you answered determined what kind of character skills you would have? I just remember the cards flipping, but I think you could override the results, if you had your heart set on a different skill set.

Gods, I got old.

Edit:  I see someone else posted the answer to this question... nvm.

Modifié par Sister Helen, 30 mai 2011 - 08:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Marionetten wrote...

More likely he played simplistic games and then gradually moved up to more complex games instead of asking for every single game created to be super accessible from the get-go.

Don't concern yourself too much with my little joke there, it was only intended to get a rise out of the poster anyway.  On second thought I should have went with something like, "No, it's more like asking a non-driver if a BMW is easy to learn to drive."

Marionetten wrote...

You cannot cater to everyone.

Well, you can try, but you have to avoid extremes. 

Marionetten wrote...

It's just not going to happen and I don't see why BioWare should waste more resources on tryingto cater to non-gamers when they can barely appeal to gamers as things stand.

Arguing about resource cost on a forum where none of the users (save a few who have BioWare tags and aren't at liberty - typically - to reveal the details of them anyway) actually have any knowledge of what these design decisions would actually cost - in real terms - is problematic at best and useless at worst. 

That said, is the suggestion of say, an "auto-loadout" button for character inventories on its merits alone a bad one?  How does it differ tremendously from auto-levelling? 

Brockololly wrote...

2.) Really, I don't think devs need to simplify or dumb things down for new people, they just have to do a better job explaining things- and sometimes that means getting into nitty gritty detail.

All that being said, this statement most closely reflects my position on the issue.

ME2 for example suffered from a lack of information when it came to describing the capabilities of various weapons and upgrades.  Pretty sure Christina Norman even acknowledged as much in a Tweet.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 mai 2011 - 08:49 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

2.) Really, I don't think devs need to simplify or dumb things down for new people, they just have to do a better job explaining things- and sometimes that means getting into nitty gritty detail.

All that being said, this statement most closely reflects my position on the issue.

Near as I could tell, this was all the OP was trying to say.

[Realmzmaster]

Sister Helen wrote...

Was it one of the Ultimas that had a Tarot card reading where the cards you picked and questions you answered determined what kind of character skills you would have? I just remember the cards flipping, but I think you could override the results, if you had your heart set on a different skill set.

Gods, I got old.

Edit:  I see someone else posted the answer to this question... nvm.

We are like fine wines we have aged well!

So Bioware is just to make games that appeal to their "hardcore base" and forget about  attracting a future audience? So Bioware should make its games inaccessible to non-gamers and casual players and instead just rely on the shrinking fanbase that it has.
So where are the future CRPG players going to come from?
Can anyone answer that question?

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 30 mai 2011 - 10:05 .

[Redcoat]

Brockololly wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I would like a system in which the game asks you if you were a new player unfamiliar with RPGs or the series. In that case it invokes a number of in-game messages to explain the background or game mechanics more thoroughly. That way character creation could be at the start of the game. The way it is implemented now is annoying for people like me who are already familiar with the game.

Yup- If devs want to have the super handholding option I almost think they should look at sports games like Madden, where you can have it pick a play for you if you want. But its just an option.

I understand where Laidlaw is coming from with wanting a low barrier to entry, but the way DA2 did things early on had many issues, IMO:

1.) You had little to no vested interest in why Super Hawke was killing a bunch of monsters from a story perspective. Personally, I think this is one of DA2's biggest overall problems, where you're just killing crap without knowing why you're killing stuff or what the significance of killing the stuff is or even having the option to kill stuff.

I know they wanted to get you right in the combat, but thats the problem when you have no idea why you're fighting, who you are and what the hell is going on. In an RPG, the combat generally needs some context to have it hold much weight. So while an individual fight may be interesting tactically or gameplay wise, why I'm fighting, who I'm fighting, and the context surrounding the fight is just as important.

I'd liken it to a Total War campaign battle versus just a single skirmish- if you're just playing a single battle, it lacks context and its mostly done for the tactical RTS gameplay. But when you have the campaign map open and you get into a battle, you have a broader context for the significance of the battle and why you're fighting. So a mundane battle on the more micro RTS level might be super significant given the campaign map macro level in that it could wipe out an enemy nation. Yet, I felt too often DA2 either gives really flimsy context for the battles or doesn't at all.

2.) Really, I don't think devs need to simplify or dumb things down for new people, they just have to do a better job explaining things- and sometimes that means getting into nitty gritty detail. I think way too many developers seem to think gamers are complete slobbering fools that can't wake up and tie their shoes in the morning without getting distracted. Sure, you need to make things interesting to keep people engaged, but I think thats where you have to make a strong first impression and hook the player with something like impressive graphics/visuals or an interesting story that the player takes notice of- that stuff can be appreciated by most anyone regardless if they know what an RPG is or not. Then once the player is interested, ease into the gameplay. I mean, I know some of my friends that have little to no interest in RPGs that once showed the opening military camp in The WItcher 2 were blown away and engaged by the game just by the visuals- that was enough to hook them and get them interested in how the rest of the mechanics of the game worked.

I don't think DA2 did a decent job of that as it just chucks you in combat, not only with little context but also in a fairly drab looking area visually.

3.) I think starting with some more involved character creation can act as an easy hook to keep the player's attention.  Not the Diablo-esque pick a Hawke screen of DA2, but even if it was something similar but add in the face customization- something anyone can do pretty easily. And have that sort of thing integrated in the story/plot like the Fallout games do it. That way it doesn't seem as abstract in just picking stuff out of a menu, but you're still "playing" the game when fiddling with the stats.So stuff like Fallout's SPECIAL or the GOAT is a good example.

Very well said.

I found it ridiculous how often combat gets shoehorned into DA2's quests, the most egregious example being The Long Road. Somehow even a simple matchmaker quest turns into a bloodbath. I can just imagine Hawke going down to the liquor store for a six-pack and walking in the door completely drenched in blood from the five dozen people he had to slaughter along the way.

In regards to the point about developers' attitudes towards gamers, there's the contemptible notion as of late that, if a player cannot instantly grasp a game's mechanics, then he will not enjoy the game at all. I hear words like "ADD generation" thrown about, but I'd like to think that the average player has a long enough attention span to figure out something more complex than some mindless action game.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Brockololly wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I would like a system in which the game asks you if you were a new player unfamiliar with RPGs or the series. In that case it invokes a number of in-game messages to explain the background or game mechanics more thoroughly. That way character creation could be at the start of the game. The way it is implemented now is annoying for people like me who are already familiar with the game.

Yup- If devs want to have the super handholding option I almost think they should look at sports games like Madden, where you can have it pick a play for you if you want. But its just an option.

I understand where Laidlaw is coming from with wanting a low barrier to entry, but the way DA2 did things early on had many issues, IMO:

1.) You had little to no vested interest in why Super Hawke was killing a bunch of monsters from a story perspective. Personally, I think this is one of DA2's biggest overall problems, where you're just killing crap without knowing why you're killing stuff or what the significance of killing the stuff is or even having the option to kill stuff.

I know they wanted to get you right in the combat, but thats the problem when you have no idea why you're fighting, who you are and what the hell is going on. In an RPG, the combat generally needs some context to have it hold much weight. So while an individual fight may be interesting tactically or gameplay wise, why I'm fighting, who I'm fighting, and the context surrounding the fight is just as important.

I'd liken it to a Total War campaign battle versus just a single skirmish- if you're just playing a single battle, it lacks context and its mostly done for the tactical RTS gameplay. But when you have the campaign map open and you get into a battle, you have a broader context for the significance of the battle and why you're fighting. So a mundane battle on the more micro RTS level might be super significant given the campaign map macro level in that it could wipe out an enemy nation. Yet, I felt too often DA2 either gives really flimsy context for the battles or doesn't at all.

2.) Really, I don't think devs need to simplify or dumb things down for new people, they just have to do a better job explaining things- and sometimes that means getting into nitty gritty detail. I think way too many developers seem to think gamers are complete slobbering fools that can't wake up and tie their shoes in the morning without getting distracted. Sure, you need to make things interesting to keep people engaged, but I think thats where you have to make a strong first impression and hook the player with something like impressive graphics/visuals or an interesting story that the player takes notice of- that stuff can be appreciated by most anyone regardless if they know what an RPG is or not. Then once the player is interested, ease into the gameplay. I mean, I know some of my friends that have little to no interest in RPGs that once showed the opening military camp in The WItcher 2 were blown away and engaged by the game just by the visuals- that was enough to hook them and get them interested in how the rest of the mechanics of the game worked.

I don't think DA2 did a decent job of that as it just chucks you in combat, not only with little context but also in a fairly drab looking area visually.

3.) I think starting with some more involved character creation can act as an easy hook to keep the player's attention.  Not the Diablo-esque pick a Hawke screen of DA2, but even if it was something similar but add in the face customization- something anyone can do pretty easily. And have that sort of thing integrated in the story/plot like the Fallout games do it. That way it doesn't seem as abstract in just picking stuff out of a menu, but you're still "playing" the game when fiddling with the stats.So stuff like Fallout's SPECIAL or the GOAT is a good example.

There is not much to add to this post. Well written and thought out. Good post.

[naledgeborn]

More DA2 criticism? I'm game. Overall I think it was a rushed, lazy game. Off the top of my head - Item descriptions for the inventory (see DAO for more conetext). One of many examples.

[Sidney]

Marionetten wrote...


More likely he played simplistic games and then gradually moved up to more complex games instead of asking for every single game created to be super accessible from the get-go.

Like there is some sort of gaming hierarchy you play and end up, no doubt, at the top of the food chain with RPG's. That's silly. I've really never played much but RPG's on the computer because they are easy compared to high twitch things like Madden or CoD.

I think the RPG snobs need to realize that their chosen genre isn't hard it isn't even difficult compared to most other genres. It doesn't have the mentally taxing elements of your better strategy games nor the physical twitch demands of an FPS.  I'd have a better shot at getting a non-gamer through DAO than CoD any day of the week.

[upsettingshorts]

Autolycus wrote...

You learn....like we all did. There are already plenty of games on the market that cater to that kind of person, role playing games, have never been that type of game.

They haven't?  Could have fooled me.  That's why I played on Easy when I first started.  Because it was Easy.  Whatever mistakes I made simply did not matter.  

And what kind of games are these?  I swear if you say "shooters and sports games" I will slap you with a large fish.

Sidney wrote...

Like there is some sort of gaming hierarchy you play and end up, no doubt, at the top of the food chain with RPG's. That's silly.

It may be silly, but the number of people who post on the BSN who genuinely seem to believe it is incredible  predictable.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 mai 2011 - 09:00 .

[TEWR]

OP very nice post.


As for the G.O.A.T idea, as long as I can say that I'd blow up a toilet with a cherry bomb I'm happy. But I'm trying to think of a way that it could actually work for Dragon Age. Currently it's sound in theory but in practice is hard for me to imagine.

Oh and I always saved the dude's mom.

[Marionetten]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, you can try, but you have to avoid extremes.

And in avoiding those extremes you typically end up creating a product disliked by both new gamers and hardcore gamers. A lot of people love extremes. Hence the success of games like Demon's Souls and The Witcher 2 which are downright hostile towards new players. Tutorial? Yeah, you won't get one of those. Figure it out or die trying. The same applies to the Wii and its immense success with casual players.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there is plenty of space in the market for both to co-exist. I don't harbor some intense hatred for casual gamers. For me it has more to do with self-preservation. As such, I'm quite keen on pointing out that these two camps sustain themselves on very different products. While you can try to overlap I've yet to see a single game do it successfully. Blizzard is probably the undisputed master of this but they still have a long way to go.

That said, the preferred strategy seems to be to have some hardcore products and some accessible products. Goes for every supermarket out there, right? So why not have Dragon Age be the hardcore product and Mass Effect be the more accessible product. That way BioWare does effectively cater to two camps without alienating either. I get to be happy. My casual evil twin also gets to be happy.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Arguing about resource cost on a forum where none of the users (save a few who have BioWare tags and aren't at liberty - typically - to reveal the details of them anyway) actually have any knowledge of what these design decisions would actually cost - in real terms - is problematic at best and useless at worst. 

That said, is the suggestion of say, an "auto-loadout" button for character inventories on its merits alone a bad one?  How does it differ tremendously from auto-levelling?

It's not as much arguing as simply stating that anything implemented into the product takes time and resources away from something else. Zots are limited.

I'm not going to say it's a bad idea as much as a completely unnecessary idea for me. Then again, I don't even use tactics. Would I take this feature over say functional scabbards and bowstrings? Absolutely not.

Modifié par Marionetten, 30 mai 2011 - 09:02 .

[Sidney]

naledgeborn wrote...

More DA2 criticism? I'm game. Overall I think it was a rushed, lazy game. Off the top of my head - Item descriptions for the inventory (see DAO for more conetext). One of many examples.

There were descriptions for the special items just like in DAO.  They put them in the Codex  (where they belong) rather than on the item screen.

What they did was added in a lot of not-special magic items - the generic +3% physical damage items that didn't have an explaination nor really warrant any info. The spam of crummy generic magic items mitigated most of the good they did by getting rid of "trash looting" They just subbed one for of junk for another.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Redcoat wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[snip]

[snip]

Very well said.

I found it ridiculous how often combat gets shoehorned into DA2's quests, the most egregious example being The Long Road. Somehow even a simple matchmaker quest turns into a bloodbath. I can just imagine Hawke going down to the liquor store for a six-pack and walking in the door completely drenched in blood from the five dozen people he had to slaughter along the way.

In regards to the point about developers' attitudes towards gamers, there's the contemptible notion as of late that, if a player cannot instantly grasp a game's mechanics, then he will not enjoy the game at all. I hear words like "ADD generation" thrown about, but I'd like to think that the average player has a long enough attention span to figure out something more complex than some mindless action game.

Agreed. Somehow BW thinks that (console) players have the long term memory of a gold fish (1 second) and are just smart enough to barely hold a controller or mouse. There is a limit to hand holding and dumbing down.

[Marionetten]

Sidney wrote...

Like there is some sort of gaming hierarchy you play and end up, no doubt, at the top of the food chain with RPG's. That's silly. I've really never played much but RPG's on the computer because they are easy compared to high twitch things like Madden or CoD.

Of course there is a hierarchy. Do you think I went straight from Mario to Ultima? No, I actually bridged that gap with adventure games before I even attempted the leap.

I'm not going to say that RPGs are at the top but they do unarguably come with a whole lot more rules than the most basic platformers. Denying that is just absurd.