201 réponses à ce sujet

[Dark Necronus2]

While I appreciate this evaluation and the civility with which it was posted, I hope Bioware does not "streamline" Dragon Age 3 even further to cater to new gamers. In comparing the sales volume of DAO and DA2, there is a clear lesson to be learned about the negative effects of streamlining.

Modifié par Dark Necronus2, 31 mai 2011 - 07:51 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Dark Necronus2 wrote...

While I appreciate this evaluation and the civility with which it was posted, I hope Bioware does not "streamline" Dragon Age 3 even further to cater to new gamers. In comparing the sales volume of DAO and DA2, there is a clear lesson to be learned about the negative effects of streamlining.

I feel the same if anything I want them to add more choices, more skills and more loot, gear and customisation. More content and more difficulty and tactics not relying on bland waves of enemies to comphensate for poor tactical mechanics.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 31 mai 2011 - 07:54 .

[Plaintiff]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dark Necronus2 wrote...

While I appreciate this evaluation and the civility with which it was posted, I hope Bioware does not "streamline" Dragon Age 3 even further to cater to new gamers. In comparing the sales volume of DAO and DA2, there is a clear lesson to be learned about the negative effects of streamlining.

I feel the same if anything I want them to add more choices, more skills and more loot, gear and customisation. More content and more difficulty and tactics not relying on bland waves of enemies to comphensate for poor tactical mechanics.

You can have all that and still make a game more accessible to new players, it has nothing to do with "streamlining", it's about making a game easier to get into at the beginning. They're two completely separate concepts.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
If you can somehow magically make those zots appear out of thin air then by all means. The fact is that I don't care about tutorials as they don't exist in my universe. Subsequently my opposal to them here is purely based on the idea of something else suffering for it. There is no specific opposition to tutorials as they do absolutely nothing for me one way or another.

What do you mean, something else suffering for it? Zots are assigned at the start of the design (putting aside overruns). If a tutorial is part of the base concept, nothing suffers. 

More generally, we are not talking about creating new areas, or adding VO, or adding the option to switch between RPG turn-based and Action-RPG Hack & Slash. These interchangeable modes would waste zots.

The only thing that you could say is that you don't think that a difficulty curve is acceptable and want a set (and very high) difficultly for the entire game. Then I suppose you could object to the idea of an introductory level being easier than later portions of the game.

But there is no need to make the game easy at all to make it accesible (though, certainly, I think there is a value in offering a reasonable opportunity for many people to try a game) ; it just means designing a game with a difficultly curve, having the relatively easiest segment to start, and using it to introduce the player to the base mechanics of the game.

In Exile wrote...
Yet Knights of the Old Republic was based on the very same basic mechanics. You roll and hope for the best. And I really wouldn't call the tutorial good or memorable. It was just a few basic pop ups teaching you how to use the various devices. This could all easily be accomplished in a manual.

It wasn't D&D. I'm not objecting to D20 dice, or modified feats, or the set D&D player char statistics or level up schemes. I'm objecting to the horrible mess of feats and abilities and traits that you have to integrate to play the game. KoTOR lacked that.

As for a manua, it's not the same thing. Learning while reading and learning while doing are not the same thing at all. Nothing is a substitute for experience.

Say you were learning logic (the most formal rule-system we have). Reading the textbook is useless; you need to go out and solve problems. That's why example are crucial in science. In-game tutorials are instructional examples.

In Exile wrote...
The Witcher 2 is held up as a shining example of the genre while Dragon Age II sulks in the shadows. This does influence consumers as the sales have already demonstrated. A good game will outsell a bad game with a great tutorial every single day of the week. I don't think that statement is very speculative.

TW2 is certainly a better game than DA2. I'm not debating that. But you used it as an example of a game that would introduce people to the genre. I'm saying that claim is independent from the claim that it's an excellent and well-received game.

Exactly. It would mean less content. It would mean a lesser core experience for the sake of making the game more accessible. Now we're on the same page.

For one, DA2 has part of a tutorial - that terribly opening. It's a combat tutorial. It's a flawed way to start the game and introduces the player to none of the mechanics, but anyway.

To have a solid tutorial in DA2, you already have all the elements build into the game (now that I think about it). The section in Lothering just needs some more detailed boxes (if you enable it) and something walking you through which abilities to start off with for a potential build and how to execute cross-class combos (that cross-class combos are such an important part of the game but locked until higher difficulties is terrible design).

But it doesn't relate specifically to tutorials. My ideological stance lies in not wanting the core game diminished for any reason. Don't confuse the two.

That's such a vague statement to be effectively meaningless.

What you said, though, is that you don't have an ideology. I'm just pointing out you do.

And like I have said to you repeatedly: that's still not going to work for everyone and other elements of the game will unavoidably suffer because of it.

It doesn't have to work for everyone. Why do you keep bringing that up?

As for the design aspect, yes. Tutorials have some non-zero cost.

But you said that you don't want the core game 'diminished'. That's too idiosyncratic and vague to work. Too expert RPG players can disagree on what it means to diminish a game. One could say: if the game does not have consistency in the rule-set, the game is diminished. Difficulty is secondary to consistency. The other could say, it is difficulty that's neccesary. Consistency should only serve insofar as it makes the game challenging.

Was KoTOR diminished because it wasn't based on an identical ruleset to BG (it had much simpler feats and gameplay)?

They are rules that the player has to learn. My elderly mother was a master at the old Mario games yet she can't get into the new ones as she finds them too confusing. When it comes to games rules are everything and the more complicated a game is the more rules it will have. This goes for every genre.

Or it could be the rapid pace of the game and the wii controller.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

What do you mean, something else suffering for it? Zots are assigned at the start of the design (putting aside overruns). If a tutorial is part of the base concept, nothing suffers.

More generally, we are not talking about creating new areas, or adding VO, or adding the option to switch between RPG turn-based and Action-RPG Hack & Slash. These interchangeable modes would waste zots.

The only thing that you could say is that you don't think that a difficulty curve is acceptable and want a set (and very high) difficultly for the entire game. Then I suppose you could object to the idea of an introductory level being easier than later portions of the game.

But there is no need to make the game easy at all to make it accesible (though, certainly, I think there is a value in offering a reasonable opportunity for many people to try a game) ; it just means designing a game with a difficultly curve, having the relatively easiest segment to start, and using it to introduce the player to the base mechanics of the game.

The fact remains that those zots spent on crafting an intricate tutorial could be better spent on crafting something else. That is my objection. I also don't agree with your ideal difficulty curve as it would make the game less enjoyable for me. You're already mucking with the core design here and it's obvious enough to me that I would not have enjoyed The Witcher 2 had it been crafted by you.

At this point we're merely going in circles. You believe that a game must have a tutorial. I believe that gamers should consult the manual instead of asking for developers to focus on something which a lot of gamers opt to skip anyway.

In Exile wrote...

It wasn't D&D. I'm not objecting to D20 dice, or modified feats, or the set D&D player char statistics or level up schemes. I'm objecting to the horrible mess of feats and abilities and traits that you have to integrate to play the game. KoTOR lacked that.

As for a manua, it's not the same thing. Learning while reading and learning while doing are not the same thing at all. Nothing is a substitute for experience.

Say you were learning logic (the most formal rule-system we have). Reading the textbook is useless; you need to go out and solve problems. That's why example are crucial in science. In-game tutorials are instructional examples.

Knights of The Old Republic did have its own feats and classes. It was indeed a customized version but it was still very much operating on basic D&D rules complete with all of its pitfalls. Sure, it didn't have the same breadth but I have a hard time believing that you'd actively oppose more meaningful content. More likely Knights of the Old Republic managed to ensnare you because of how refined it was. It looked pretty and it looked like it played pretty. All those dice rolls happening in the background didn't bother you as much due to how the combat was choreographed. Instead it suddenly struck you as very exciting. This goes for a lot of gamers out there who started with Knights of the Old Republic.

As for a manual not being the same thing I don't find much difference from a pop up message going "press this button to activate this device" in-game as opposed to reading it from my manual while playing the game. To me there is no distinction as you can still use that knowledge in the game. You're just reading it from a manual instead of a pop up message.

In Exile wrote...

TW2 is certainly a better game than DA2. I'm not debating that. But you used it as an example of a game that would introduce people to the genre. I'm saying that claim is independent from the claim that it's an excellent and well-received game.

All I'm saying is that it has likely brought in people from different genres due to its glossy presentation. Just like Knights of the Old Republic did. I don't find this to be an entirely unfair assumption. I also think it went about it in the right way by refining itself instead of trying to make itself accessible for a different audience. This is a lesson BioWare could stand to learn.

In Exile wrote...

For one, DA2 has part of a tutorial - that terribly opening. It's a combat tutorial. It's a flawed way to start the game and introduces the player to none of the mechanics, but anyway.

To have a solid tutorial in DA2, you already have all the elements build into the game (now that I think about it). The section in Lothering just needs some more detailed boxes (if you enable it) and something walking you through which abilities to start off with for a potential build and how to execute cross-class combos (that cross-class combos are such an important part of the game but locked until higher difficulties is terrible design).

Which would all effectively mean less content in other areas, yes. And no amount of tutorials could ever save Dragon Age II. It's a weak game with a weak core. Learning it isn't worth the effort. Therein lies the issue.

In Exile wrote...

That's such a vague statement to be effectively meaningless.

What you said, though, is that you don't have an ideology. I'm just pointing out you do.

And I'm just pointing out that my ideological stance isn't what you assumed it to be.

In Exile wrote...

It doesn't have to work for everyone. Why do you keep bringing that up?

To prove that your entire cause is utterly pointless. With every change you make you will be losing someone. Instead of mucking with the gameplay and wasting zots on tutorials just make the damn game look appealing.

In Exile wrote...

As for the design aspect, yes. Tutorials have some non-zero cost.

But you said that you don't want the core game 'diminished'. That's too idiosyncratic and vague to work. Too expert RPG players can disagree on what it means to diminish a game. One could say: if the game does not have consistency in the rule-set, the game is diminished. Difficulty is secondary to consistency. The other could say, it is difficulty that's neccesary. Consistency should only serve insofar as it makes the game challenging.

Was KoTOR diminished because it wasn't based on an identical ruleset to BG (it had much simpler feats and gameplay)?

Every design team sets a focus early on. This is key when it comes to making a good product. That focus is what constitutes the core. The more time spent on the core the stronger the core becomes. Once you've got a really strong core you start expanding.

Dragon Age II didn't have a strong core. In order for Dragon Age III to succeed BioWare needs to focus on the core experience above all else. This is what makes or breaks a franchise. Not a tutorial. We need to get rid of these distractions and actively encourage them to focus on the core experience if we want to see genuine improvement.

We might disagree on a lot but I think we can agree on the fact that Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II both came with some extremely poorly conceived rules. This is where I want to see the effort spent. On building a way better ruleset and foundation for the franchise. We need refinement and no amount of tutorials will compare to a comprehensible ruleset.

You're trying to bandage the problem with tutorials while I'm trying to solve it.

In Exile wrote...

Or it could be the rapid pace of the game and the wii controller.

It's the fact that the game expects you to learn more things. In the original Mario you can move in four directions. In the new Mario games you have a lot more options when it comes to movement. This is a big difference and it does require some learning.

Modifié par Marionetten, 31 mai 2011 - 10:12 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Marionetten wrote...
The fact remains that those zots spent on crafting an intricate tutorial could be better spent on crafting something else. That is my objection.[/QUOTE]

I still don't think you understand the sort of tutorial I'm talking about, though I can appreciate that your ideal investment is zero.

[QUOTE] I also don't agree with your ideal difficulty curve as it would make the game less enjoyable for me. You're already mucking with the core design here and it's obvious enough to me that I would not have enjoyed The Witcher 2 had it been crafted by you.[/QUOTE]

Given that I would have made TW2 start at the same difficultly and actually get harder instead of easier, probably not.

I've replayed TW2 enough at this point, and it's undeniable that the combat system is deep and relatively complex, and provides for multiple ways of dealing with an encounter. But a significant portion of the difficulty comes from the absence of information.

[QUOTE]At this point we're merely going in circles. You believe that a game must have a tutorial. I believe that gamers should consult the manual instead of asking for developers to focus on something which a lot of gamers opt to skip anyway.[/QUOTE]

A tutorial has to be a seamless and optional part of the game. Certainly gamers can skip the tutorial - but they still need to learn and play the game. What an ideal tutorial should be is the manual overlay in game (for those who want it) which provides more information in dealing with the initial levels, which themselves take advantage of encounters designed to test each of the gameplay modul a player uses.

A good tutorial doesn't reduce the difficulty of the game and should be seamless with the game design.

[quote]
Knights of The Old Republic did have its own feats and classes. It was indeed a customized version but it was still very much operating on basic D&D rules complete with all of its pitfalls. Sure, it didn't have the same breadth but I have a hard time believing that you'd actively oppose more meaningful content. [/QUOTE]

Meaningful content is a weasle word, though. I'd certainly want a deeper rule-set. But D&D isn't deep - it's the google translation of a chinese textbook. It's the wrong sort of complex; the kind that is a maze to translate, but once you do, isn't at all challenging.

[QUOTE]More likely Knights of the Old Republic managed to ensnare you because of how refined it was. It looked pretty and it looked like it played pretty. All those dice rolls happening in the background didn't bother you as much due to how the combat was choreographed. Instead it suddenly struck you as very exciting. This goes for a lot of gamers out there who started with Knights of the Old Republic.[/QUOTE]

That's really far removed from my experience. I liked KoTOR because I understood how the dice rolls worked in principle, because of the detail of the combat log and the explanation it provided. I didn't come to KoTOR expecting an action game. I was aware of how it worked. I wasn't interested in RPGs because they seemed uselessly complex.

It was the Star Wars brand that made me try the game, and it was the accesibility of the rule-set that kept me playing.

[QUOTE]As for a manual not being the same thing I don't find much difference from a pop up message going "press this button to activate this device" in-game as opposed to reading it from my manual while playing the game. To me there is no distinction as you can still use that knowledge in the game. You're just reading it from a manual instead of a pop up message.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you think, the empirical answer is clear. Put it this way: if you read a book about how to play a sport (for example, how to throw a football) will you be able to play a high-level amateur pick-up game? No. There is an experiential component that is integral to any kind of task.

A manual lacks an experiental compontent.

[quote]All I'm saying is that it has likely brought in people from different genres due to its glossy presentation. Just like Knights of the Old Republic did. I don't find this to be an entirely unfair assumption. I also think it went about it in the right way by refining itself instead of trying to make itself accessible for a different audience. This is a lesson BioWare could stand to learn.[/QUOTE]

It's an entirely unfounded assumption. We have absolutely no data that indicates which factors draw people in. We can talk about what games drew people in in general based on what people say... but otherwise we don't know very much.

To counter, I would say KoTOR brought people in because it had Star Wars on the label.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Which would all effectively mean less content in other areas, yes. And no amount of tutorials could ever save Dragon Age II. It's a weak game with a weak core. Learning it isn't worth the effort. Therein lies the issue.[/QUOTE]

No. It would mean the exact same amount of content, because I would change nothing but the wording of the tutorial screens.

More generaly, even if your thesis is that learning is about motivation (and it absolutely is) the counter to that is that motivation is checked by frustration. The more frustrating a game is, the more likely it is that it will exhaust the patience of the players.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
To prove that your entire cause is utterly pointless. With every change you make you will be losing someone. Instead of mucking with the gameplay and wasting zots on tutorials just make the damn game look appealing.[/QUOTE]

My cause is not to please anyone and everyone. It is a design principle. You say, make the game look appealing. I say: designing a game not to be frustrating is appealing.

You're trying to couch your preference in universal terms. You could certainly be right in the general case - but you need more evidence than your opinion and vague terminology.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Every design team sets a focus early on. This is key when it comes to making a good product. That focus is what constitutes the core. The more time spent on the core the stronger the core becomes. Once you've got a really strong core you start expanding.

Dragon Age II didn't have a strong core. In order for Dragon Age III to succeed BioWare needs to focus on the core experience above all else. This is what makes or breaks a franchise. Not a tutorial. We need to get rid of these distractions and actively encourage them to focus on the core experience if we want to see genuine improvement.

We might disagree on a lot but I think we can agree on the fact that Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II both came with some extremely poorly conceived rules. This is where I want to see the effort spent. On building a way better ruleset and foundation for the franchise. We need refinement and no amount of tutorials will compare to a comprehensible ruleset.

You're trying to bandage the problem with tutorials while I'm trying to solve it.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not. That you would even say this (and this is the second debate you've argued against a position I never advocated) is very frustrating.

I'm not addressing what would make DA2 a good game. There's not much that's salvageable in design in DA2. We started this discussion because I was curious about your view on how to draw in an audience. I have a good idea of that now. I'm only continuing the discussion because it's summer and I'm, honestly, bored.

More generally, I was debating design philosophy. It's great that you think a game should have a better core, or it should be appealing... but that has to mean something, concretely.

[quote]It's the fact that the game expects you to learn more things. In the original Mario you can move in four directions. In the new Mario games you have a lot more options when it comes to movement. This is a big difference and it does require some learning. [/quote]

Totally. But it's not rule based, unless you want to say something like walking is rule based.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Given that I would have made TW2 start at the same difficultly and actually get harder instead of easier, probably not.

I've replayed TW2 enough at this point, and it's undeniable that the combat system is deep and relatively complex, and provides for multiple ways of dealing with an encounter. But a significant portion of the difficulty comes from the absence of information.

You're absolutely right in that. A lot of the difficulty comes from having to learn. It's a process in itself and it's a process which I don't necessarily view as a negative as I find the ruleset to be comprehensible enough to allow for experimenation. The Witcher 2 as a whole is pretty consistent in how it deals with things. If you mess up it's usually because you didn't use something in your arsenal or because you weren't aware you had it in your arsenal. The game leaves this up to you and I have a hard time seeing that as a failing of the game as much as a failing of the player.

In Exile wrote...

A tutorial has to be a seamless and optional part of the game. Certainly gamers can skip the tutorial - but they still need to learn and play the game. What an ideal tutorial should be is the manual overlay in game (for those who want it) which provides more information in dealing with the initial levels, which themselves take advantage of encounters designed to test each of the gameplay modul a player uses.

A good tutorial doesn't reduce the difficulty of the game and should be seamless with the game design.

But that requires far more effort than a few pop up windows. Now we're talking about going into the guts of the game and implementing it instead of just offering a window with some miscellaneous information. I mean, you'd have to design every early encounter around the idea of it being a tutorial. Would it make for a better tutorial? Most certainly. Is it necessary? Not for me and I wouldn't appreciate having to sit through it. I liked the fact that The Witcher 2 dropped me right into the action and told me to go have some fun. 

Besides, if you want to learn you've got the manual right there. That's your option. That's your toggle. That's your ultimate source of information. Read it. Love it. Keep it nearby while playing. The Witcher 2 was even launched with a guide book. Why willfully neglect these tomes of knowledge?

In Exile wrote...

Meaningful content is a weasle word, though. I'd certainly want a deeper rule-set. But D&D isn't deep - it's the google translation of a chinese textbook. It's the wrong sort of complex; the kind that is a maze to translate, but once you do, isn't at all challenging.

Does D&D have a lot of pointless things? Sure. But it also allows you an immense amount of depth when it comes to creating your character. To me this isn't pointless. To me that's very important. If you've got issues with terminology that's fine but my argument has more to do with the actual mechanics rather than their labeling. I wouldn't care if they renamed THACO into something else as it doesn't effect my gameplay experience on any level.

In Exile wrote...

That's really far removed from my experience. I liked KoTOR because I understood how the dice rolls worked in principle, because of the detail of the combat log and the explanation it provided. I didn't come to KoTOR expecting an action game. I was aware of how it worked. I wasn't interested in RPGs because they seemed uselessly complex.

It was the Star Wars brand that made me try the game, and it was the accesibility of the rule-set that kept me playing.

They seemed, yes. But you said it yourself, they're pretty easy when it comes down to it. It's not an overly complicated game at all. It's certainly not Dwarf Fortress. In addition to being Star Wars ( which is pretty huge in itself ) Knights of the Old Republic made RPGs look slick instead of nerdy. This was an important time for the genre in general and it was largely appearance based. This spawned later games like Mass Effect and Jade Empire which sought to make themselves more action based instead of just looking the part.

A lot of people who played Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn never even grasped what THACO meant or that armor values were the other way around. It just wasn't necessary. Difficulty aside, I don't find Baldur's Gate to be a much more complex game than Knights of the Old Republic when it comes down to the bare essentials. They all operate on the same basic principles.

In Exile wrote...

Whatever you think, the empirical answer is clear. Put it this way: if you read a book about how to play a sport (for example, how to throw a football) will you be able to play a high-level amateur pick-up game? No. There is an experiential component that is integral to any kind of task.

A manual lacks an experiental compontent.

The game is the experimental component. Combine the manual with the game and you've got yourself a functional tutorial. I'm just not seeing the big difference between reading a pop up message in the game versus reading the manual while playing the game.

In Exile wrote...

It's an entirely unfounded assumption. We have absolutely no data that indicates which factors draw people in. We can talk about what games drew people in in general based on what people say... but otherwise we don't know very much.

To counter, I would say KoTOR brought people in because it had Star Wars on the label.

And I'd acknowledge that. Brand recognition is most certainly an important  factor. That said, I can't agree with the notion of the assumption of presentation being relevant in regards to drawing in new consumers as unfounded. From what I've observed, presentation is absolutely VITAL. This is why game developers blow so much effort on having their games look slick. I've never seen tutorials being pimped as a selling point. Great presentation? You bet. All the time. It's all about first impressions.

In Exile wrote...

No. It would mean the exact same amount of content, because I would change nothing but the wording of the tutorial screens.

More generaly, even if your thesis is that learning is about motivation (and it absolutely is) the counter to that is that motivation is checked by frustration. The more frustrating a game is, the more likely it is that it will exhaust the patience of the players.

Which is why it's important to balance the two out, yes. But in doing this balancing you also need to keep your audience in mind. Some players enjoy that frustration as it makes them feel a much greater sense of accomplishment from overcoming it. I would be included in that demographic. I like punishing games like Demon's Souls and The Witcher 2. Other people wouldn't be. Designing one game which pleases both is exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Instead of worrying about trying to pander to one or the other the developer needs to figure out what they want to do. The rest will come naturally.

In Exile wrote...

My cause is not to please anyone and everyone. It is a design principle. You say, make the game look appealing. I say: designing a game not to be frustrating is appealing.

You're trying to couch your preference in universal terms. You could certainly be right in the general case - but you need more evidence than your opinion and vague terminology.

But they're not going to know that until they actually play the game. This is completely irrelevant in regards to drawing in new consumers as you actually have to experience it. By making your game look good you're instantly putting countless of curious eyes on it. Besides, both The Witcher 2 and Demon's Souls are viewed as incredibly frustrating games yet they have a whole lot of appeal. Your appeal is subjective by its very nature. Mine isn't quite as subjective as everybody enjoys a good looking product.

In Exile wrote...

I'm not addressing what would make DA2 a good game. There's not much that's salvageable in design in DA2. We started this discussion because I was curious about your view on how to draw in an audience. I have a good idea of that now. I'm only continuing the discussion because it's summer and I'm, honestly, bored.

More generally, I was debating design philosophy. It's great that you think a game should have a better core, or it should be appealing... but that has to mean something, concretely.

It varies from case to case. This is something the developer has to figure out. They have to find a focus and nurture it. They have to create their pillars of design and continue building on them. This is what Dragon Age II failed to do. Dragon Age: Origins was developed for years and it did have some pillars even if they were ready to collapse from age. Instead of doing its own pointless little thing on the side Dragon Age II should have started patching those pillars up and refined what was already there. Now we're back at square one all over. This frustrates me.

Meanwhile, CD Projekt RED took their pillars and built them all the way to the sky. They trimmed the fat by changing obnoxious fist fight minigames into far more tolerable QTE's ( I don't like QTE's much but it was a definitive improvement in this regard ) and by removing fetch quests. They focused on what really mattered. Letting us make choices and watching them unfold in a beautiful world. That's how I believe you should build a stronger consumer base and I'm pretty confident that The Witcher 2 will outsell the first game by a good deal thanks to this. Refine, refine and refine more!

I don't care what kind of game you're making but if you don't devote enough attention to the core experience it's not going to be a very good one. You need to have a vision and you need to follow that vision a hundred percent without worrying about alienating certain segments of the market. The marketability of a product should always come after the design. Unfortunately, we've got it the other way around here. This needs to change. Marketing needs to take a step back and let the creativity market itself because that is the best marketing you're going to get.

Hopefully I've answered your question sufficiently. I don't mean to be vague. It's just difficult to provide a cure all for all genres as there are so many different focuses but the best I've seen is definitely presentation coupled with plain old creativity.

In Exile wrote...

Totally. But it's not rule based, unless you want to say something like walking is rule based.

In a video game, everything is.

Modifié par Marionetten, 01 juin 2011 - 12:25 .

[Kidd]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

New players shouldn't know the lore before they play, they learn that as they play and by the end understand some of it then if curious about anything they don't understand they can talk to people, read about it.

I hear what you're saying and I agree on principle. What you're saying is definitely the way to go. But that's when it's done well. Your description is a fine way of describing how going into DA:O was for us. But when somebody starts with DA2, trust me, it's not at all that easy. It's not just a term or two, you literally don't know anything about the world more or less (aside from how the king has been betrayed by his most trusted general) and the entire thing is written as if it's obvious you've played DA:O already. It's incredibly confusing.

Marionetten wrote...

But you said it yourself. A lot of people do look down on Mario

There's a difference between 'look down on' and 'not finding it a game that interests them'. Of course not everyone are going to love every game, that's impossible and I've never stated anything else. All you wanted was an example of a game where both hardcore and casual gamers were having a blast. And Mario is that game.

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I feel the same if anything I want them to add more choices, more skills and more loot, gear and customisation. More content and more difficulty and tactics not relying on bland waves of enemies to comphensate for poor tactical mechanics.

But I never asked for anything but "more choices" in my original post =\\ Although it was game options, not story line etc.

[erynnar]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

New players shouldn't know the lore before they play, they learn that as they play and by the end understand some of it then if curious about anything they don't understand they can talk to people, read about it.

I hear what you're saying and I agree on principle. What you're saying is definitely the way to go. But that's when it's done well. Your description is a fine way of describing how going into DA:O was for us. But when somebody starts with DA2, trust me, it's not at all that easy. It's not just a term or two, you literally don't know anything about the world more or less (aside from how the king has been betrayed by his most trusted general) and the entire thing is written as if it's obvious you've played DA:O already. It's incredibly confusing.

Marionetten wrote...

But you said it yourself. A lot of people do look down on Mario

There's a difference between 'look down on' and 'not finding it a game that interests them'. Of course not everyone are going to love every game, that's impossible and I've never stated anything else. All you wanted was an example of a game where both hardcore and casual gamers were having a blast. And Mario is that game.

Not to start a flame war, but Witcher 2 I only played Witcher 1 barely, yet they have done the learning of the lore and the story, and about Geralt in such a way I am not lost. I picked up on his companions quickly. So maybe DA2 fell short again in that it was trying to be a sequel but not a sequel? Lore and learning it for the new player could have been better. Also not throwing out a lot of the lore or retconning it to suit the new story might have helped to.*shrugs*

I can see it might have been hard for her to follow what was going on in DA2 without DAO. Maybe it was due to being rushed.

[Marionetten]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

There's a difference between 'look down on' and 'not finding it a game that interests them'. Of course not everyone are going to love every game, that's impossible and I've never stated anything else. All you wanted was an example of a game where both hardcore and casual gamers were having a blast. And Mario is that game.

I don't see why anyone would be interested in a game they look down on unless they had a split personality. I don't look down on Mario but it just doesn't interest me as a franchise anymore as my tastes have changed over the years. Subsequently it'd be rather bizarre for Nintendo to start trying to pander to me with it. That's kind of my entire point here.

When you can barely appeal to your own audience I think it's a genuinely bad idea to think about expanding it further. Right now BioWare needs to solidify their audience with Dragon Age III. They need to make that an absolute priority. If they can then add some more user-friendliness I'm all for it. I'm just not sure if they're up to the challenge. We all know how rushed Dragon Age II was.

[ms_sunlight]

In Exile wrote...

That's really far removed from my experience. I liked KoTOR because I understood how the dice rolls worked in principle, because of the detail of the combat log and the explanation it provided. I didn't come to KoTOR expecting an action game. I was aware of how it worked. I wasn't interested in RPGs because they seemed uselessly complex.

It was the Star Wars brand that made me try the game, and it was the accesibility of the rule-set that kept me playing.

I think one of the key things that makes a CRPG work is the ability to lift the bonnet, so to speak, and look at the engine ticking over - the rolls, the stats, the resistances etc.  If you have a complex RPG mechanic but can't see it working, what you end up with is something that feels like an unresponsive action game.  You don't have to watch the scrolling messages all the time, but I think you need to have them - or something that can fulfil the same function - present.  (Incidentally, for me the option to have scrolling messages is sorely missed in the Dragon Age franchise.)

The ruleset in KotOR was great because it was simple enough to be accessible without background knowledge, in a way that D&D based games like NWN just aren't.  Don't get me wrong, they're great when you understand them, but the balance is very different especially if you're coming in cold.

I'm not a Star Wars fan; I bought KotOR *despite* it being a Star Wars game but love it nonetheless.  I installed Linux to replay the bloody thing recently because I couldn't get it running under Windows 7, if that's not love for a game what is?

[PSUHammer]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

I disagree. WRPGs are supposed to be similar to Devil May Cry in the sense that they are aimed at an advanced audience.

Isn't that racist? The alternative opposing side to wRPG is eastern RPG's (such as jRPG etc). Clearly you have never tried to pull off a gazillion hit combo in Disgaea 3!  

If you ever play against enough eastern players you will see that a vast amount of them are far more dedicated and better at games than us western counterparts, so advanced audience doesn't preclude asian style RPG's. Don't let the fuzzy, cuddley anime fool you some of their games are a nightmare difficulty and tactics wise.

Why would talking about a game style make one a racist? 


For instance, I hate JRPGs, Final Fantasy, Japanimation, Speed Racer, etc. Find them bland, repetitive and stylistically dumb but that doesn't mean I am racist towards a group of people.

[Wozearly]

Plaintiff wrote...

You can have all that and still make a game more accessible to new players, it has nothing to do with "streamlining", it's about making a game easier to get into at the beginning. They're two completely separate concepts.

Completely agree.

As a random, specific example, something I really did like about DA2 was that the impact of stats was slightly better represented on the character screen - you added a point in Dex, you could immediately see what its effect would be generally, and in specific situations (e.g. vs normal, vs boss, etc.).

There's no reason that a geek with a calculator couldn't work this out themselves, or toy around with different builds as we may have done in Origins (e.g. what attack rating seems to be best, what's the right trade-off between crit damage and crit chance, is it worth stacking % increases to fire damage rather than spellpower if I'm mostly using fire abilities, is it better to have nature damage vs spirit damage - can I get a feel for what on earth is immune to what?, etc.)

...but its easy to make it accessible by having the game calculate the key bits for you and display them in terms of damage, defence, persuasion, miscellenous bits and pieces, etc. with more detailed breakdowns when the cursor hovers over any bit.

This angle, to me, is about giving players the support to make informed decisions. It doesn't tell them what's right or wrong (there may not be a right/wrong in any case), but it does help them understand how their character could be built and, with a half-decent bit of gentle demonstration in the tutorial, give them a glimpse of what they can expect from characters built in a certain way.

That way, it doesn't matter if there are a ton of stats and lots of reasonably similar-looking pieces of equipment, or five different trees you could branch into...you have a decent feeling at the start that you know what you're doing and some general pointers of how to get there, but with the confidence to experiment as you go along and experience the game.

Again, part of that confidence is about the game having a reasonable balancing between what gets used where...perhaps not quite like Origins, where every man and his dog was immune or resistant to nature damage whilst electricity as a mana/stamina drain plus virtually no enemy immunities/resistances was a pretty sound choice for all situations....but which you couldn't possibly know until you were mostly through a playthrough.


Streamlining would be removing all of those subtleties and having one stat for damage, one stat for defence, etc. and a couple of related things built upon those. It removes the problem by removing the complexity...but also removes the things that those additional layers add to the game.

Modifié par Wozearly, 01 juin 2011 - 01:12 .

[R2s Muse]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Question though, why would someone want to start in the middle of a story? I always wondered why someone would want to play ME2 if it was understood that ME1 was an major introduction to the lore and story. I mean, would you really start watching Star Wars with Empire? Wouldn't you wonder why people are running around and fighting for?

Haven't read through every page of this, but this is an interesting discussion. For what its worth, I also think part of the issue - esp with the codex - is that coming in the middle of the story will always be slightly confusing. To add my own experience, I've only really played typical "medieval-ish" whatever RPGs (e.g. BG, NWN) and not so much shooters (which make me nauseous) or more space-based ones. So, when I got a free download of ME2 and checked it out...boy, was I lost!  The world canon and jargon made my head spin...and there was no way I was going to sit and read every codex (even if voiced, which tooook soooo looooong). I tried the comic...which helped a little... but inevitably I bought ME1. Playing it was much more enjoyable, even if it wasn't as technically slick, since it was specifically designed to introduce me to that world and its mechanics. Although, nevertheless, it would never be as familiar to me as, say, the whole DnD-LOTR wizard-warrior, dwarf-elf-human big-damn-quest-style world that I typically experience in RPGs.

Anyway, we'll see if I last til ME2, but I think inevitably starting out on any sequel will have this challenge. That said, I wouldn't expect it to hold my hand as much, since you know, it IS the middle of the story. But it was intriguing enough to make me go back to the beginning.

Modifié par R2s Muse, 01 juin 2011 - 01:33 .

[Speakeasy13]

Hammer6767 wrote...
Why would talking about a game style make one a racist? 


For instance, I hate JRPGs, Final Fantasy, Japanimation, Speed Racer, etc. Find them bland, repetitive and stylistically dumb but that doesn't mean I am racist towards a group of people.

I found that accusation a bit offensive frankly. Like, I'm Asian so I can't not like JRPGs.

I mean, it was like walking up to a black person and say, "Hey you're black! Why don't you like gansta rap?! You must be racist!"

[PSUHammer]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...
Why would talking about a game style make one a racist? 


For instance, I hate JRPGs, Final Fantasy, Japanimation, Speed Racer, etc. Find them bland, repetitive and stylistically dumb but that doesn't mean I am racist towards a group of people.

I found that accusation a bit offensive frankly. Like, I'm Asian so I can't not like JRPGs.

I mean, it was like walking up to a black person and say, "Hey you're black! Why don't you like gansta rap?! You must be racist!"

I hear you. If people's personal taste in entertainment correlated to them being racist...the entire world is racist!!

[Nashiktal]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
These games aren't like Devil May Cry. The idea is that someone can choose to play on Casual and be capable of enjoying a great story line and role play without being challeneged very much game play-wise if they don't want to. It's the kind of game our mothers and people new to gaming could be able to enjoy. I say give them the option, as long as it doesn't detract from our experience  =) I'm curious to see if my friend will want to continue playing DA2 or not the next time she comes over. She certainly seemed to enjoy herself overall even though she got stuck now and then ^^

And DA team... kudos on two handed swing animations, along with Varric's and Aveline's characters. She seemed to like them a lot =)

I disagree. WRPGs are supposed to be similar to Devil May Cry in the sense that they are aimed at an advanced audience. Whereas DMC tests the players physical skills,  WRPG tests the players mental and roleplay capacities. If you're a non-gamer or casual gamer, then I honestly think you'd be better off playing JRPG. And this is coming from someone actually from Asia and grew up among JRPGs.

I don't mean to disrespect your opinion but many of us feel the exact opposite of how you feel. The game is not complicated and challenging enough and alrdy too friendly to ppl like your friend. I think if you want to play an RPG with proper role play then it's only fair that you invest time and effort into learning the system, because role playing, by nature, is not meant to be done casually.

I dare you to go play Suikoden, get the secret endings, and then tell me straight to my face that didn't require any mental capacities. Building your team just the way you want it using 108 potential party members takes time my friend. Then when you are done with that easy work, go play Disgaea. After that feel free to jump staight into demons souls, and the persona series. 

Now for someone who grew up in asia and jrpg's, you are oddly enough providing the sweeping example that seem to be ignoring all the the deep JRPG games. 

[Realmzmaster]

Nashiktal wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
These games aren't like Devil May Cry. The idea is that someone can choose to play on Casual and be capable of enjoying a great story line and role play without being challeneged very much game play-wise if they don't want to. It's the kind of game our mothers and people new to gaming could be able to enjoy. I say give them the option, as long as it doesn't detract from our experience  =) I'm curious to see if my friend will want to continue playing DA2 or not the next time she comes over. She certainly seemed to enjoy herself overall even though she got stuck now and then ^^

And DA team... kudos on two handed swing animations, along with Varric's and Aveline's characters. She seemed to like them a lot =)

I disagree. WRPGs are supposed to be similar to Devil May Cry in the sense that they are aimed at an advanced audience. Whereas DMC tests the players physical skills,  WRPG tests the players mental and roleplay capacities. If you're a non-gamer or casual gamer, then I honestly think you'd be better off playing JRPG. And this is coming from someone actually from Asia and grew up among JRPGs.

I don't mean to disrespect your opinion but many of us feel the exact opposite of how you feel. The game is not complicated and challenging enough and alrdy too friendly to ppl like your friend. I think if you want to play an RPG with proper role play then it's only fair that you invest time and effort into learning the system, because role playing, by nature, is not meant to be done casually.

I dare you to go play Suikoden, get the secret endings, and then tell me straight to my face that didn't require any mental capacities. Building your team just the way you want it using 108 potential party members takes time my friend. Then when you are done with that easy work, go play Disgaea. After that feel free to jump staight into demons souls, and the persona series. 

Now for someone who grew up in asia and jrpg's, you are oddly enough providing the sweeping example that seem to be ignoring all the the deep JRPG games. 

Suikoden I-V are excellent RPG/Strategy games. I watch my son (who is 26) who owns all five (along with Final Fantasy Tactics and Ogre Battle) play them. We get into involved discussions on the tactics in the game. The land and naval battles are intense. Getting all 108 stars is fun.

Being a strategy PC gamer (Total War series , Warcraft and others) I find them quite involving. Right up there with the best of the CRPGs and Strategy games for the PC.
Most definitely require thinking on how to maximize your units potential in combat and countering the enemy threat.

[Wozearly]

R2s Muse wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

Question though, why would someone want to start in the middle of a story? I always wondered why someone would want to play ME2 if it was understood that ME1 was an major introduction to the lore and story. I mean, would you really start watching Star Wars with Empire? Wouldn't you wonder why people are running around and fighting for?

Haven't read through every page of this, but this is an interesting discussion. For what its worth, I also think part of the issue - esp with the codex - is that coming in the middle of the story will always be slightly confusing.

Depends how you do it. 

If there was a clear intention to make DA2's lore readily accessible at an early stage, then in addition to Varric's introduction (and spoilers) about DAO, the story could have been started before the current prologue in Lothering. That way there would have been an opportunity for 'questioning' options about the darkspawn, the blight, what on earth is going on, etc. which could have introduced some of the key lore and freed up the codex to add flavour, as in DAO.

On a personal side note, I would have been tempted to include Alistair in a cut-scene cameo giving the chance for someone nearby to point  them out and say they're convinced Alistair is one of the Grey Wardens (cue the "What so special about the Wardens?" dialogue option) Loghain is looking for, giving an 'evil' Hawke the opportunity to tip off Loghain's men in the tavern or, alternatively, discourage any attempts to tip off Loghain's men. Plus the obvious cameos of Sten in the cage and Leliana in the chantry...as a couple of Origins characters may make cameos in DA2 elsewhere, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in any case.

Equally, some initial encounters with the mages and templars could have set the scene more clearly for those who hadn't picked up the original.

Clearly, this would have taken development time and the introductory bits would have added less value to previous Origins players (who I imagine made up a massive chunk of DA2 players), so its ultimately a call between whether time spent doing something like that would have been better spent on content elsewhere.


Alternatively, a lot of sequels (etc.) try to dodge the issue by putting a completely different person into the world and making the world significantly different in terms of location (e.g. Elder Scrolls) so that the character is new to it, and has good reason to need the opportunity to ask questions, even if the player already has some prior knowledge.

Modifié par Wozearly, 01 juin 2011 - 08:00 .

[PinkShoes]

I dunno what you are really saying by doing this since why would a casual gamer pick up Dragon age?

[Wozearly]

PinkShoes wrote...

I dunno what you are really saying by doing this since why would a casual gamer pick up Dragon age?

Hehe...trolling, much?

Frankly, both DAO and DA2 presented relatively low barriers to entry for casual gamers, although DA2's was definitely a lower bar for those more familiar with action-style games and its structure made it easier to pick up, put down and carry on as it had lower levels of immersion and complexity.

Ironically, one of the causes of bitterness amongst some Origins players with DA2 was that there was less reward for people who valued DAO's comparatively higher levels of complexity both in terms of characterisation, character build and impact of decisions made throughout the game.

Surprisingly, it also acted as a turn-off to a friend of mine who is an absolutely fiend for FPS and action games. In his view, DA2 didn't present anything 'more' or better than what was already out there, it didn't wow him and he wasn't particularly drawn into the Hawke storyline.

However, he plunged headlong into DAO and the KOTOR series - I think because they did something different very well. Although they're like nothing he normally plays, he was ridiculously hooked. AFAIK, he's currently toying around with Mass Effect as a result.

[ozenglish]

Great Post OP.

Techincally, DA2 is not really a lineal successor to DA:O, so it is a good place to start storywise. You know you are fleeing something major. While the story at the beginning with all the art, gives a basic rundown, it still isn't really 100% clear for a new person.

As for dumbing down, etc, how are we supposed to introduce new people to the genre. For example a friend of mine plays Europa Universalis, I have played Civilization since game 1, and played tabletop military games many years ago, and he gave me a lend of it, I had installed, played about 2 days worth, and swore off the series as being micromangement hell. Yes, I understand the reasoning, but if it had a setting for introduction level, I probably would have played it more. So yes, sometimes elite RPG players may think a series is being dumbed down, but, most of us probably read choose your own adventure books or played text based games before the hardcore RPG games came out, so we understand the concepts, but having a game that is easier to play off the bat, is like a gateway drug. If done right, there is a convert to the RPG community.

[Vogga]

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
If you can somehow magically make those zots appear out of thin air then by all means. The fact is that I don't care about tutorials as they don't exist in my universe. Subsequently my opposal to them here is purely based on the idea of something else suffering for it. There is no specific opposition to tutorials as they do absolutely nothing for me one way or another.

Was KoTOR diminished because it wasn't based on an identical ruleset to BG (it had much simpler feats and gameplay)?

Yes. Well, not because it wasn't 'an identical ruleset to BG', but because of the more simplistic skill trees, actually. I liked KotOR a lot, but the skill trees not especially. Upgrades for feats and feats in general were pretty basic. The force power selection could have been more interesting too perhaps. I enjoyed the combat for what it was, but I'd have rather had more intricate swordsmanship abilities than "critical strike', 'flurry', and 'power attack'.

Modifié par Vogga, 03 juin 2011 - 08:31 .

[TheRaj]

This thread is pretty interesting. It does make sense that a new player would want a more streamlined game, so I suppose if you want to reach a wider audience that is the way to go. However, like any genre that requires time to appreciate, if you try to simplify it to make it more accessible you can end up creating something that maybe lacks depth. Its like trying to make Jazz appeal to a wider audience - you get Kenny G. Now a lot of people like Kenny G, so he must be doing something right. Its not the wider appeal that is the issue, its the sacrifices you make to achieve it.