378 réponses à ce sujet

[gogman25]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

I never insulted anyone nor did I intend to, simply put the features are being simplified for a wider audience. If people were dumb for playing shooters... well... what game series are we discussing?
No, im not opposed to a game being 'simple', im opposed to a game being stripped of complexity in an attempt to gain more sales and failing.

Then why didn't you write "over-simplified to appeal to a wider audience" instead of "dumbing down"?  Or "why the lack of complexity in the trailer"? 

Because dumbing down is a well known phrase amongst gamers, and asking why the lack of complexity would be pointless as the answer to that is obvious.

[nhsk]

AlanC9 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

DA:O -> DA2
ME1 -> ME2 -> ME3 - Yeah its getting dumbed down, because kids doesn't wan't any learning anymore instead they just cry "it's to hard, nerf" and yes, developers listen because kids are the majority of gamers.

There was stuff to learn in ME1????

Perhaps not as much, but it still was a harder game to figure out for some, Tower of Hanoi f.example... "Oh noes, a puzzle, it's to hard, do NOT want in ME2"

I kinda enjoyed it, especially because it was the first time I had seen it in a game so actually took me a little to figure out all while I was cursing I didn't have a 100 spare omnigel.

[gogman25]

sumoaltus wrote...

it's always fun to watch a dialogue tree trailer

Yes, it actually is.
I enjoy hearing dialogue and discussion with a hint of drama and action, in the ME3 combat trailer there were 2 lines of dialogue - one of which hinted that Shepard must've smashed his head into a brick wall several times during his escape from Earth. "WE FIGHT OR WE DIE! THAT'S THE PLAN!" Wow, no wonder I got my squad killed on Torfan, no wonder.

[AlanC9]

gogman25 wrote...

The decimation of complexity is what has made video games easier, not balancing, not better interfaces.
If you didn't manage your weapons/mods/skills/armour in ME1 then you'd be chewed up and fired into the sun.
ME2 might as well have just been a shooter.

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Edit: well, fighting through the stupefying boredom of it is a kind of hard, but I don't think it's the kind you're talking about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juin 2011 - 08:42 .

[Ace of Dawn]

...

Wait, I'm confused. You saw a one minute, seventeen second trailer for a game and managed to see that the game was completely stripped of all complexity and failed in being nothing short of perfection? Impressive. People usually need more information than that to make their claims. Like playing the game.

You're also criticizing a trailer for appealing to the LCD in order boost sales. A trailer. Whose singular purpose is to generate buzz so that sales increase. Sure, the ME2 trailer has nothing on the ME3 trailer in the explosion counter area, but that does not mean ME2 was lacking all the things you're criticizing ME3 for allegedly having. Even ME1 had its fair share of explosions, action, and fast pace.

Also, execution is what makes great games. Not complexity, simplicity, explosions, dialogue, or story in their individual components. Explosions and lots of action does not mean something is dumbed down or simple. There are some examples floating around... like war. Yeah.

Now then, that isn't to say you are dead wrong. But at this point, to claim this is less complex or catering and will suffer for it is impossible to state. In a years time, we will see if what you said is true. However, even if it is all true, I will ask if you enjoyed the game. And that is the point.

Until then, speculation as to ME3's complexity or lack thereof is just that: Speculation.

[gogman25]

AlanC9 wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

The decimation of complexity is what has made video games easier, not balancing, not better interfaces.
If you didn't manage your weapons/mods/skills/armour in ME1 then you'd be chewed up and fired into the sun.
ME2 might as well have just been a shooter.

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Exactly, having to manage numbers is quite complex for many gamers.
I found no difficulty in it, my only suggestions for improvement would be to fix how much loot we get, everytime you opened a damn bin a stash of weapons fall out on you.

[Gar_Logan]

I always thought that the trailer is meant to generate hype among gamers. And then the people who actually gave a crap would read the countless articles, interviews and stuff that confirm the game isn't all action.

Personally, I enjoy dialogue and discussion when I'm playing the game. When I want to get hyped up for it, I watch the action and fast paced stuff. The kind of stuff that makes you really want to know what's going to happen in the game.

[Someone With Mass]

Managing the inventory in ME1 was nothing else but busy work until you got the best armor and weapons in the game. Then it all became horribly obsolete and one could just turn it all into omni-gel. No reason to go to planets and do side missions either other than being a completionist.

It didn't add any dept to the game, it was just padding.

Good riddance, I say.

[gogman25]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

...

Wait, I'm confused. You saw a one minute, seventeen second trailer for a game and managed to see that the game was completely stripped of all complexity and failed in being nothing short of perfection? Impressive. People usually need more information than that to make their claims. Like playing the game.

You're also criticizing a trailer for appealing to the LCD in order boost sales. A trailer. Whose singular purpose is to generate buzz so that sales increase. Sure, the ME2 trailer has nothing on the ME3 trailer in the explosion counter area, but that does not mean ME2 was lacking all the things you're criticizing ME3 for allegedly having. Even ME1 had its fair share of explosions, action, and fast pace.

Also, execution is what makes great games. Not complexity, simplicity, explosions, dialogue, or story in their individual components. Explosions and lots of action does not mean something is dumbed down or simple. There are some examples floating around... like war. Yeah.

Now then, that isn't to say you are dead wrong. But at this point, to claim this is less complex or catering and will suffer for it is impossible to state. In a years time, we will see if what you said is true. However, even if it is all true, I will ask if you enjoyed the game. And that is the point.

Until then, speculation as to ME3's complexity or lack thereof is just that: Speculation.

Im not drawing a conclusion, im still rather mixed on what I believe the end product will be.
It's not much evidence at all, of course it isn't... but a traler is still designed to imprint an impression and this was the impression I gained from it.

[sp0ck 06]

gogman25 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

The decimation of complexity is what has made video games easier, not balancing, not better interfaces.
If you didn't manage your weapons/mods/skills/armour in ME1 then you'd be chewed up and fired into the sun.
ME2 might as well have just been a shooter.

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Exactly, having to manage numbers is quite complex for many gamers.
I found no difficulty in it, my only suggestions for improvement would be to fix how much loot we get, everytime you opened a damn bin a stash of weapons fall out on you.

Lol, you guys serious?  You could easily...EASILY beat ME1 without ever changing a single weapon mod.  The only thing you had to "manage" was remembering to vendor trash 99% of the useless crap you were picking up so when you found something with 5 more damage than your old identical rifle, you weren't forced to gel it.

ME2 has its flaws but this was not one of them.  Having to deal with a bunch of useless loot does not make a game "deeper."

[Captain_Obvious]

[quote]13Dannyboy13 wrote...

Overall games seem to be getting dumbed down to appeal to a broader market, I can understand that, but I find myself missing the old days when you actually had to think to finish a game, games that left you stuck trying to figure things out by yourself, there was a much greater sense of accomplishment when finishing those games. These days, I'm lucky to not get sick of a game before I'm finished it, there's really no challenge to most games, and way too much hand holding.[/quote]

[quote]

Overall games seem to be getting more inclusive, and appealing to a broader market.  I can understand that, because the old days when the games punished you for not having astonishing reflexes or having an inordinate amount of time to play left you with a much diminished sense of enjoyment since those games were never finished or played with friends and family.  These days, I'm fortunate to finish most of the games that I play, since most of them are enjoyable and entertaining since there's no more of that useless and pointless frustration of having no visible goals or direction. 

[gogman25]

Gar_Logan wrote...

I always thought that the trailer is meant to generate hype among gamers. And then the people who actually gave a crap would read the countless articles, interviews and stuff that confirm the game isn't all action.

Personally, I enjoy dialogue and discussion when I'm playing the game. When I want to get hyped up for it, I watch the action and fast paced stuff. The kind of stuff that makes you really want to know what's going to happen in the game.

I have read countless articles and watched plenty of clips. However we must bear in mind Bioware can funnel (for the most part) what hits the media. It's like a formula, if they see alot of discontent RPG fans, add some RPG. If they see alot of discontent shooter fans, add some shooter.
Like I said I cannot really draw a conclusion; only Bioware can. But this trailer coupled with the recent direction of Bioware has worried me greatly.

[nhsk]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Lol, you guys serious?  You could easily...EASILY beat ME1 without ever changing a single weapon mod.  The only thing you had to "manage" was remembering to vendor trash 99% of the useless crap you were picking up so when you found something with 5 more damage than your old identical rifle, you weren't forced to gel it.

ME2 has its flaws but this was not one of them.  Having to deal with a bunch of useless loot does not make a game "deeper."

Inventory management (yes it was crappy in ME1) is a big part for RPG games, customization of stuff like the look of your team etc. and what weapons to use (there shouldn't have been godmode guns with frictionless materials... I'm looking at you spectre gear)

So yes, it is a big part of the experience for those who want to play what they thought they bought, an RPG.

[AlanC9]

gogman25 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Exactly, having to manage numbers is quite complex for many gamers.
I found no difficulty in it, my only suggestions for improvement would be to fix how much loot we get, everytime you opened a damn bin a stash of weapons fall out on you.

I think that's simply wrong. People dislike managing numbers because they find it boring, not because it's too complex for them.

My suggestion for how to improve ME1 is to do it just like ME2, except eliminate shops and credits since Cerberus shoudl have bought all that stuff already.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juin 2011 - 08:53 .

[Raxxman]

Nothing wrong with making the shooter parts better.

You spend more of the game shooting people than you do talking to people.

You have to understand the target crowd, ME fans are already expected to buy ME3. CoD fans not so much (yeah you get overlap I'm being very general as I don't have a lot of time right now)

[AlanC9]

nhsk wrote...

Inventory management (yes it was crappy in ME1) is a big part for RPG games, customization of stuff like the look of your team etc. and what weapons to use (there shouldn't have been godmode guns with frictionless materials... I'm looking at you spectre gear)

So yes, it is a big part of the experience for those who want to play what they thought they bought, an RPG.

The more I hear that this is what RPGs are, the more worthless I think the RPG genre is.

[gogman25]

[quote]Captain_Obvious wrote...

[quote]13Dannyboy13 wrote...

Overall games seem to be getting dumbed down to appeal to a broader market, I can understand that, but I find myself missing the old days when you actually had to think to finish a game, games that left you stuck trying to figure things out by yourself, there was a much greater sense of accomplishment when finishing those games. These days, I'm lucky to not get sick of a game before I'm finished it, there's really no challenge to most games, and way too much hand holding.[/quote]

[quote]

Overall games seem to be getting more inclusive, and appealing to a broader market.  I can understand that, because the old days when the games punished you for not having astonishing reflexes or having an inordinate amount of time to play left you with a much diminished sense of enjoyment since those games were never finished or played with friends and family.  These days, I'm fortunate to finish most of the games that I play, since most of them are enjoyable and entertaining since there's no more of that useless and pointless frustration of having no visible goals or direction.  [/quote]

[quote]

Overall games seem to be getting more profitable, and appealing to a wider audience. I can understand that, because the old days when games weren't completable in a single session because you needed to plan and think left many lazy gamers. These days, im discontent when I finish most of the games I play in a few hours, since most of them are simplfied and short since there's no more of that freedom or indepence.

Yeah, it's not a perfect duplicate. [/quote]

[nhsk]

Raxxman wrote...

Nothing wrong with making the shooter parts better.

You spend more of the game shooting people than you do talking to people.

You have to understand the target crowd, ME fans are already expected to buy ME3. CoD fans not so much (yeah you get overlap I'm being very general as I don't have a lot of time right now)

No nothing wrong with that, but when you take out the RPG parts, well... You kinda feel effed.

[gogman25]

AlanC9 wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Exactly, having to manage numbers is quite complex for many gamers.
I found no difficulty in it, my only suggestions for improvement would be to fix how much loot we get, everytime you opened a damn bin a stash of weapons fall out on you.

I think that's simply wrong. People dislike managing numbers because they find it boring, not because it's too complex for them.

My suggestion for how to improve ME1 is to do it just like ME2, except eliminate shops and credits since Cerberus shoudl have bought all that stuff already.

So the only way to really improve is to just find high quality guns sitting around and scan planets so we can tape iridium to weapons?
Do you even want to play an RPG or just a third person shooter?

[nhsk]

AlanC9 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

Inventory management (yes it was crappy in ME1) is a big part for RPG games, customization of stuff like the look of your team etc. and what weapons to use (there shouldn't have been godmode guns with frictionless materials... I'm looking at you spectre gear)

So yes, it is a big part of the experience for those who want to play what they thought they bought, an RPG.

The more I hear that this is what RPGs are, the more worthless I think the RPG genre is.

Why do you play them then? When you just want to make it into another genre?

A big part of the enjoyment for me in DA:O and ME1 was to manage my gear, finding good builds for my team etc to be able do to the higher difficulties.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh look it's this thread again.

[Fredvdp]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

DA:O -> DA2
ME1 -> ME2 -> ME3 - Yeah its getting dumbed down, because kids doesn't wan't any learning anymore instead they just cry "it's to hard, nerf" and yes, developers listen because kids are the majority of gamers.

It's to much cuddling that began in the 90'ties.

Ahh the good old days of nintendo hard, when you actually had to try and felt an actual satisfaction when you succeeded.

Yes I'm pessimistic because there is a chance I might get pleasantly surprised.

ME1 was a lot easier than ME2....

ME1 had a horrible difficulty curve. When you have Spectre gear the game gets ridiculously easy but before that I had much trouble completing sidequests on normal difficulty. I just did a hardcore run of ME2 and it was easy as hell.

[gunswordfist]

Don't care. As long as the game itself has no rock music and the epic action fits well into ME3's world, there's nothing to worry about

[Someone With Mass]

In Mass Effect's case, I'm playing them for the story and the dialogues, not so I can find some weapon that's slightly better than the one I'm currently using, because that's such a waste.

[marshalleck]

The first Mass Effect showed off a lot of dialogue at E3 2007(?) and Bioware got flamed ruthlessly for having a "boring" presentation. So they start showing more action, and suddenly they're getting raving coverage for their games. WTF do you think they're going to do, go back to dialogue and have everyone lose interest again?