39 réponses à ce sujet

[neubourn]

Zemiious wrote...

I' am not the only consumer in the world of video games but I am the only one that should matter. 

Well...you started out correct, shame you couldnt finish that way.

[Faust1979]

Zemiious wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

This topic will get locked just as fast if it turns into a "Only teh reel Hardcore Gamers deserve to play Games!" ****** fest. You're not the only consumer in the world and video games fall under consumer products. I'll let this run for a few hours and see where it goes. Keep it respectful, inline with the Site Rules, and maybe you'll surprise me.

My argument was never ONLY "HARDCORE GAMERS deserve to play games!"(though imo, thats how it should be) You insult my well thought out rant by reducing it to a single line that screams "troll bait!". The other members made my argument sound as such, but contrary to popular belief my position had real points. It is the other members who attacked me first with their disrespectful nonsense.

I' am not the only consumer in the world of video games but I am the only one that should matter. developers should focus on appealing to, get this, gamers!


Casual gamers are not gamers they are people who got play their brothers xbox360's or their grandpapa got swindled into purchasing the wrong console. What is so elitest about acknowleding the differences between gamers and.. nonhabitual gamers?

who are you to say who is a gamer and who isn't? i'll own whatever console I choose if the games appeal to me

[Rake21]

Zemiious wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

This topic will get locked just as fast if it turns into a "Only teh reel Hardcore Gamers deserve to play Games!" ****** fest. You're not the only consumer in the world and video games fall under consumer products. I'll let this run for a few hours and see where it goes. Keep it respectful, inline with the Site Rules, and maybe you'll surprise me.

My argument was never ONLY "HARDCORE GAMERS deserve to play games!"(though imo, thats how it should be) You insult my well thought out rant by reducing it to a single line that screams "troll bait!". The other members made my argument sound as such, but contrary to popular belief my position had real points. It is the other members who attacked me first with their disrespectful nonsense.

I' am not the only consumer in the world of video games but I am the only one that should matter. developers should focus on appealing to, get this, gamers!


Casual gamers are not gamers they are people who got play their brothers xbox360's or their grandpapa got swindled into purchasing the wrong console. What is so elitest about acknowleding the differences between gamers and.. nonhabitual gamers?

Bold part:  That's racist

On the rest of it, it'd be great if developers focused only on gamers, but they won't.  Casual gamers will always be a big part of the market.  And, don't hate me for saying this, but there are some damn fun casual games out there.

[MassEffect762]

If you come to understand how young people's minds tick and how video game companies revolve around them(imo) to make money you'll understand the lack of mature appeal in those games.

I was what 24-25 when I first played ME1 and it made me feel like a kid again.

I was 26-27 during ME2 and I found the game tedious and uninspiring.

Funny what time can do to you. Imo it's money(EA) and the younger folk who's taste's
are less demanding/matured that result in games like DA2/ME2.(imo of course)

My 00.2

Modifié par MassEffect762, 12 juin 2011 - 04:07 .

[AtreiyaN7]

How exactly does this even relate to ME3, other than as an attempt to insist that "casual" gamers be excluded? You're not even talking about ME3 at all anywhere in your OP from what I can see. As previously stated in relation to ME3, BW clearly listened to the ME2 feedback and has brought back a number of RPG elements in ME3. Again, I'll point you the E3 footage and screenshots you can see in the forums here and elsewhere). Addressing the topic in general, I think that it is to be expected that it might take a while for a company to learn how to balance their games by making them accessible to a great number of people while still keeping enough of the RPG mechanics to keep "hardcore" players satisfied.

[Zemiious]

neubourn wrote...

I stopped reading at "control the flow of dialogue."

Ok, well maybe i read a bit more. Casual Gamers are vital to the gaming industry, it drives sales which in turn generates profits for developers, which in turn leads to bigger and (mostly) better games.
So, get used to them, every developer tries to cater to as large a portion of the gaming population as possible, its good business.

They are not 'vital' to anything. How can non players be vital to an industry about playing. The only thing they are vital to is the destruction of our industry. The gaming field survived just fine without these casual player zombies. We can return to where we've originated and be better off.


No problem with catering to a large portion of the gaming population. Just pick the right one or you end up with a disastor. DA2. Which wasn't "good" business.

[Akizora]

Zemiious wrote...
Casual gamers are not gamers they are people who got play their brothers xbox360's or their grandpapa got swindled into purchasing the wrong console. What is so elitest about acknowleding the differences between gamers and.. nonhabitual gamers?

I would consider myself a casual gamer because I don't constantly play games. I play perhaps a handful of games a year and they are usually just RPGs. I own a 360 and a Wii (aside from my PC) and I've played console games since I was 4 years old and got my NES (I'm 26 now)...and yet I still say I'm casual.

Many people seem to think that casual means "can't start my console", but I suppose it is down to definition. What do you define as casual?

Also, I agree on the point that a lot of games seem to have lost a lot of quality in an effort to streamline the experience too much in the wrong direction. This is not to say streamlining is always bad, taking overly convoluted systems with overcomplex mechanics and streamlining them without losing their substance into a more working and solid system is a good thing.

[VoidCabbage]

Shishmish wrote...

Well, I know what I wrote, but there may be something in the OPs post. I cannot help but remember TES:Oblivion and how ****ty it turned out to be because they wanted to attract casual players, effectively ruining the franchise for many veterans, and I hold Daggerfall and Morrowind in high regard. That game had so much hype and delivered so little, and while many mechanics like RAI or leveling are not fault of the casual audience, many things were dumbed down for the sake of casual players.

Yeah... Oblivion... game of the year was so ****ty.

I loved that game and so did many others. Don't act like your opinion is fact. 

[sympathy4saren]

What a game is is relative to the individual. Like everything. But to me, a game can either be something to blow off steam or a complex piece of interactive fiction.

In essence, its both, and it depends on the game.

What you say is the economic impact on how some view games. While it is true companies main goal is to make money (although we as the consumer make out the best, as receiver of a product we would otherwise have no access to), you seem to be concerned that consumers who view gaming as casual may be altering the economic demand and therefore the shape of the gaming industry.

In that sense, I do not think you are incorrect.

[Gavinthelocust]

Zemiious wrote...

Casual gamers are not gamers they are people who got play their brothers xbox360's or their grandpapa got swindled into purchasing the wrong console. What is so elitest about acknowleding the differences between gamers and.. nonhabitual gamers?

You're confusing casual gamers with the legion of COD obsessed 10-22 somethings that only buy things if they're shiny and have ******. Casual gamers are people who like to play games on the side of their lives because they don't have time to grind through Witcher 2. You're talking about the "dumbing down" of games for broader audiences, which is a debate that is probably still going on in the anarchy that is the DA2 forum.

[sumoaltus]

I'm going to go ahead and answer this one with a concise response. Followed by a brief explanation...

Who cares.

ME1 was personable, epic, touching, action packed, story/character driven, and down right fun.
ME2 was the same, and then some...
ME3 well, if I were Casey I could have a say so. But at this point, it's looking pretty phenomenal. Shepard looks tired, but he's not out for the count. When you look at the design in his face for this last installment you can tell he's been through quite a bit, including death.

The point I'm trying to make is, you have to look at this game like you would any big movie trilogy. The first will attract your cult fans, and the second will bring in a few others once word of mouth gets around. As for the third, well the third needs to be a blockbuster hit which will appease everyone because at this juncture, everyone has heard of it and wants to get in on a piece of the action without going through the entire story.

It's all about accessibility my friend.

[Shishmish]

[quote]Zemiious wrote...
[/quote]
Baldurs Gate 2 is the epitome of a real game. depth, difficulty, impact, replayability. What is your complaint, people didn't want to read? HA. These people are cancers.[/quote]
I have no complaints. But your view is maybe a bit fanatical, you give impression that casuals should be burned at stake for what they are. Like i mentioned before, production costs had increased and the money of these casuals is needed to make good games.
[quote]Zemiious wrote...
DA2. Ugh. another story.[/quote]
The game had potential, and I suspect it turned out the way it did because of unrealistic deadlines and short production circle. It could had benefited a LOT if it was released a bit later.
[quote]Zemiious wrote..
Witcher 1 sucked btw.
[/quote]
Blasphemy. It was easy to play, but the overall story was good with many moral gray choices to make which is something that amuses me greatly. But thats a topic for another time.

[Zemiious]

well I can say that I got quite bored wandering around Morrowind getting lost looking for the entrances starts to get boring after awhile. 

Stick to bloody bang bang call of duty then. What the hell? You guys want exploration, then complain when the explorations are TOO BIG. No, damn it. thats why the industry can not, I repeate, CAN NOT, listen to this gaming populace. The casual player knows very little about anything, especially what makes a good game.

You must be new to gaming, here lemme help you out:

Virtually
every game starts out with a tutorial level, enemies are easier, and
they use this level to explain the game dynamics. Developers understand
that not everyone is immediately aware of all of their game mechanics,
so they use this as an opportuniy to educate the players on what to do
and how to do it, and after a level or two, they leave it in the gamers
hands to progress.

I mean seriously, of all the things to complain about.

No one is even FKING TALKING ABOUT TUTORIALS. You're in the wrong GOD DAMN TOPIC. UGH. stupidity!

[mcsupersport]

As a 40 year old gamer who has been playing video games since the "Sears" tennis/pong machine, I can say I have some experience with video games.

I play games for fun, story, diversion, characters, and oh yeah, fun. Games aren't my life, my family is, my two kids are, and my lovely wife. Games are a way to pass the time on a great story or adrenaline rush shooter when they are in bed or away from the house. Games let me relieve stress from my job, or forget an annoying customer or problem from work.

The medium of games has changed allowing and even requiring the games to change themselves. Back when you had text games on the computer, and you had to dial into a server to play them you couldn't tell the story like you can today with 3d graphics and amazing facial mapping being used in games. I do hate that DA2 decided to make an "awesome" button on their game, but I also feel they got slapped in the face for doing so, and hopefully learned a lesson which given they delayed ME3 is possible.

While in movies you have main stream blockbusters that appeal to everyone, you also have the "elite" Cannes movies or IFF movies. The gaming industry will also follow this route eventually once they fully understand that the gamer isn't the 11-17 year old male child living in his parent basement anymore. Having games more mainstream will actually improve them long-term, but will engender some growing pains.. Time and feedback will be required to get where games can go. But to stand there and complain about the one thing that WILL drive games further than anything else is foolish, so don't complain about making games with broader appeal. Without that appeal, there is no money to drive the industry to develop the games to their full potential.

[javierabegazo]

Alright, this is just a big mess. LOCKDOWN