3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

Why?

I don't find anything odd in it. Most of Biowares RPG fans players allready know what Mass Effetc serie is. Do you think they can find more NEW players with RPG mechanics than fast sci-fi combat actions?

Point been, there is no point to advertise for customers, who are allready your customers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 08:23 .

[Someone With Mass]

Is there a reason why I should care what label a game has, anyway? It doesn't affect the content in any way.

[Merci357]

iakus wrote...

Of course, this may all just be marketing appealing to the widest possible audience  I can hardly see weapon customization or leveling mechanics being a minor aspect of a game.  But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

You might want to take a look at how Bethesda presented Skyrim at the E3. It's fighting - not a single look at a character screen, no loot - just hack and slash combat, and a few spells, with a little bit of exploration (to show impressive vistas, I'd guess) is featured.

So, no idea why that is, but these games seem to hide their RPG roots quite well.

Modifié par Merci357, 16 juillet 2011 - 08:29 .

[SalsaDMA]

Merci357 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Of course, this may all just be marketing appealing to the widest possible audience  I can hardly see weapon customization or leveling mechanics being a minor aspect of a game.  But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

You might want to take a look at how Bethesda presented Skyrim at the E3. It's fighting - not a single look at a character screen, no loot - just hack and slash combat, and a few spells, with a little bit of exploration (to show impressive vistas, I'd guess) is featured.

So, no idea why that is, but these games seem to hide their RPG roots quite well.

truth be told, despite having bought daggerfall, morrowind and oblivion in the past, Bethesdas presentation and inforeleases about skyrim makes me want that particular game less and less.

Personally I feel the rpg companies are starting to loose the touch with rpgs in their effort to satisfy suits demanding CoD players into their sales figures... As things are looking, I seriously doubt we'll be getting any good rpgs from any of the major developers because of how corporate business ends up working when enough suits gets attached to a company. Just like I'm still waiting for a really good spacesim shooter to take the reins up from Freespace and Freespace2.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

Why?

I don't find anything odd in it. Most of Biowares RPG fans players allready know what Mass Effetc serie is. Do you think they can find more NEW players with RPG mechanics than fast sci-fi combat actions?

Point been, there is no point to advertise for customers, who are allready your customers.

Well, to paraphrase from Ashley Williams "I think we should turn down customers.  I just don't think we should bet on them staying customers"  Do they really want people to start thinking that rather than Action-Rpgs that Bioware now focuses on ACTION-rpgs?

I like rpg mechanics.  I like being able to customize a character and his equipment.  I like choices with consequences, characters that respond to my choices, interactive storytelling, options.  I saw little of that in what we've been shown so far.  Given that we've been assured that Bioware realizes they cut too much out, and are putting some mechanics back, well, I'd have liked to see a little bit of that.  I've seen Shepard gun people down plenty over the last two games.  Let's see something different this time!

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Is there a reason why I should care what label a game has, anyway? It doesn't affect the content in any way.

It helps you determine what the content is, and if it's content that might appeal to you.

I really don't want video game purchases to be '...like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you're gonna get"

[Schneidend]

Am I missing something, here? What purpose do the stats and loots serve if not as a metric for success/failure in combat?

[SalsaDMA]

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Is there a reason why I should care what label a game has, anyway? It doesn't affect the content in any way.

It helps you determine what the content is, and if it's content that might appeal to you.

I really don't want video game purchases to be '...like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you're gonna get"

Chances are that you risk finding a 'crunchy frog' or 'spring surprise'...

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Is there a reason why I should care what label a game has, anyway? It doesn't affect the content in any way.

Eh, not really, unlike movie genres, it doesn't really tell you much about how the game works. It's too generic a classification.

You are better off watching trailers online or reading the back of boxes.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 08:44 .

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Is there a reason why I should care what label a game has, anyway? It doesn't affect the content in any way.

Eh, not really, unlike movie genres, it doesn't really tell you much about how the game works. It's too generic a classification.

You are better off watching trailers online or reading the back of boxes.

So you wouldn't expect different gaming experiences out from reading "RTS" compared to "FPS" ?
If so, why not between "FPS" and "RPG" ?

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

And in the ME3 demo it looked like the entire upgrade system was given the background treatment. 

That's because it was given the background treatment.

Pretty much everything else I saw, from the shooting to the omniblade to the Cerberus Atlas, was stuff you'd see in any sci-fi action game.  If it wasn't a Mass Effect game, and thus, a Bioware game, I'd walk right on by without a second glance.  Seen it all before.

It's still better business sense than the opposite scenario. Bioware's first Mass Effect demo showcased the dialogue wheel and the setting. That was really it. While it's nice to think that works for most gamers, without gameplay, many are not going to be sold on a new IP. And that Mass Effect video you posted was a pretty good indicator that Bioware did not have gameplay in mind with that trailer.

You're basically using your tastes to indicate why Bioware should design an E3 presentation with us in mind. I already know that you find dialogue more interesting than guns, but not everyone thinks that way, especially when a developer chooses to downplay their combat system. I personally couldn't care how Bioware markets at E3, assuming the dialogue I enjoy is still in the final product. Mass Effect's marketing may have been more in line with the final product, but I doubt it built the same level of interest from those who'd never played a Bioware product. Games rarely sell based on just their setting.

Only two parts of the demos grabbed my attention:

A)The child in the vent scene in the Fall of Earth demo, which smacked of actual role-playing opportunity
The all too brief look at the leveling system and the workbench, which did little more than show that they existed

That's one more part than grabbed my attention (the omniblade). If Bioware had designed an E3 demo with my tastes in mind, it would have been entirely about the story, characters, and setting. I couldn't care less about the shooting or the level up screens or any of that. Unfortunately, that's not how you design a gaming presentation. Actual gameplay is first and foremost.

Everything else was pretty much Shepard shooting, stabbing, or blowing up people or creatures.  Nothing that we haven't seen in countless demos in countless action games before.  If they wanted to show us what's different about Mass Effect 3, maybe we should have seen something different.

And it sells. Like it or not, action in games (of any genre) are more likely to build interest. Assassin's Creed, Deus Ex, etc, these games all have depth to them (in different ways). Yet, all also have marketing which especially showcases action/actual gameplay.

Personally, I would rather see Ezio Auditore jumping from a tall building to assassinate someone than pieces of armor I can equip.  Dragon Age's executions are more thrilling than the level up screen. Bioshock's plasmids provide more intrigue than the shop menu.

Those action sequences I described show me what (as the character) I am able to do. And it shows these elements in action, which is partially why they are more popular. It's not that leveling screens, uprades, etc, are bad. But seeing my character cloak in Deus Ex, use biotics in ME, etc, makes me more eager to pick up the game far more than how the inventory menu looks, which I would prefer reading about in an article or seeing screenshots.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:00 .

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
So you wouldn't expect different gaming experiences out from reading "RTS" compared to "FPS" ? 
If so, why not between "FPS" and "RPG" ?

They don't even go as far to classify subgenres most of the times.

I know that I am expecting a different experience from a "Strategy" game than a "Shooter", but the strategy game could very well be Spellforce and the shooter could be Splinter cell.

[Bnol]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

Why?

I don't find anything odd in it. Most of Biowares RPG fans players allready know what Mass Effetc serie is. Do you think they can find more NEW players with RPG mechanics than fast sci-fi combat actions?

Point been, there is no point to advertise for customers, who are allready your customers.

Well, to paraphrase from Ashley Williams "I think we should turn down customers.  I just don't think we should bet on them staying customers"  Do they really want people to start thinking that rather than Action-Rpgs that Bioware now focuses on ACTION-rpgs?

I like rpg mechanics.  I like being able to customize a character and his equipment.  I like choices with consequences, characters that respond to my choices, interactive storytelling, options.  I saw little of that in what we've been shown so far.  Given that we've been assured that Bioware realizes they cut too much out, and are putting some mechanics back, well, I'd have liked to see a little bit of that.  I've seen Shepard gun people down plenty over the last two games.  Let's see something different this time!

The thing is that any showing of story ends up being a potential spoiler (e.g. boy in vent) or it has no meaning or can be misinterpreted because it is out of context and you don't know what is going on.  They don't want to show consequences because they don't want to give things away about your actions from ME1/2 impacting the game. 

The skills trees and mods will be tested and tweaked constantly, so the skill set and order could be different from now until closer to release.  Thus, more detailed information on that front would be later.  Further, without knowing how the entire system works (which potentially could be different than ME2, since they want more customization) it doesn't help them to try to explain and show the system in a very short presentation format, especially if it isn't finalized. 

Developers have learned not to show or promise things for fear of the fan backlash when the have to change things.  The action aspect of the game is not going to change at this late stage in development, while skills/weapon/mod balance will be tweaked.

[Fixers0]

Schneidend wrote...

Am I missing something, here? What purpose do the stats and loots serve if not as a metric for success/failure in combat?

If you think Combat should be the fundamental element of a universe then yes, you've got a point, (almost) every gameplay device should be related to combat in a way calculating combat effectiveness.

However when you see combat as just aspect of a universe (albeit a dominant one) then you're point doesn't stand anymore because for some reason you think  that gameplay = Combat and thus everything that involves gameplay should also involve combat, which is false, combat is just a one of the many aspect of the universe. 

[AlanC9]

How come we spend so much time discussing the marketing?

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...

It helps you determine what the content is, and if it's content that might appeal to you.

I really don't want video game purchases to be '...like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you're gonna get"

I actually liked that when I was a kid, although, I can just look up gameplay videos of games I might be interested in.

[Schneidend]

Fixers0 wrote...

If you think Combat should be the fundamental element of a universe then yes, you've got a point, (almost) every gameplay device should be related to combat in a way calculating combat effectiveness.

However when you see combat as just aspect of a universe (albeit a dominant one) then you're point doesn't stand anymore because for some reason you think  that gameplay = Combat and thus everything that involves gameplay should also involve combat, which is false, combat is just a one of the many aspect of the universe. 

Right...but what other gameplay is there in the Mass Effect franchise besides the combat? There's no platforming, or puzzle-solving, or base-building, we don't need to keep any citizens happy or make sure we harvest the crops on time. What are these other aspects to which you are referring?

[Il Divo]

Schneidend wrote...

Right...but what other gameplay is there in the Mass Effect franchise besides the combat? There's no platforming, or puzzle-solving, or base-building, we don't need to keep any citizens happy or make sure we harvest the crops on time. What are these other aspects to which you are referring?

It's possible to look at the dialogue as a form of 'gameplay', but even that is a stretch for most. Most of ME's gameplay does revolve around killing things, albeit with a few stylistic options.

[Schneidend]

Ah. I suppose that's where my confusion arose. I don't consider dialogue to be gameplay. Dialogue is part of the narrative.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, at least Mass Effect didn't turn me into glorified pest control at the start and had me kill vermin for XP all day.

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

Why?

I don't find anything odd in it. Most of Biowares RPG fans players allready know what Mass Effetc serie is. Do you think they can find more NEW players with RPG mechanics than fast sci-fi combat actions?

Point been, there is no point to advertise for customers, who are allready your customers.

Bad logic.  You could find even more new players by making it like Farmville,  but that wouldn't make it a better RPG.

You don't develop games based on what genre is currently selling the most units,  like what they're doing right now.  That buisness plan gets you exactly what they have right now.  2010 was month after month of losses,  despite 800lb gorillas releasing.  2011 is a little more than half losses,  down from the already dropping 2010. 

Ignoring diversity and releasing the same game over and over leads to industry collapse.  There's a reason why Hollywood doesn't make only movies about Pirates because Pirates of the Caribbean has made over 4 billion dollars,  it's because saturation leads to exodus.

You might want to take a look at how Bethesda presented Skyrim at the E3. It's fighting - not a single look at a character screen, no loot - just hack and slash combat, and a few spells, with a little bit of exploration (to show impressive vistas, I'd guess) is featured.

So, no idea why that is, but these games seem to hide their RPG roots quite well

That's how they handled Fallout 3 too.  During it's last E3,  a reviewer asked Todd about the RPG elements,  he hemmed around for a second and then went "But look at this explosion!!!". 

Bethseda isn't interested in RPGs.

Personally I feel the rpg companies are starting to loose the touch with rpgs in their effort to satisfy suits demanding CoD players into their sales figures... As things are looking, I seriously doubt we'll be getting any good rpgs from any of the major developers because of how corporate business ends up working when enough suits gets attached to a company. Just like I'm still waiting for a really good spacesim shooter to take the reins up from Freespace and Freespace2.

Well,  Bioware appears to be Suit involvement.  Bethseda is just hubris,  they know better than anyone else and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.  Look at their community relations,  ridicule Morrowind fans publicly,  stage a campaign against fallout fans,  ban anyone who represents the communities,  censor any websites that don't fully support them.  Bethseda has alot of problems.

Bioware problems just seem to stem from EA's current leadership's belief that they can just release a ton of shooters annually and profit.  Bioware's problems are all Suit & Tie.

Eh, not really, unlike movie genres, it doesn't really tell you much about how the game works. It's too generic a classification.

You are better off watching trailers online or reading the back of boxes

What?  Seriously?

If the box says RTS,  I really don't expect to find a Shooter inside.  Since I hate fighters,  I'm also pretty confident that any game with that label isn't something I want to look into. 

The genres work just fine.

Plus,  you may want to take a moment to notice all the shades of sub-genres in movies.  Horror's one of the easier ones:  Slasher,  Shocker,  Torture-porn,  Suspense,  and one other one I can think of. 

You can't claim it works for movies and not games.  It's the same difference.  The only problem is,  in games,  people keep trying to make one genre into another for some strange reason.  It's like claiming Slap Shot is a horror movie because someone wears a goalie mask,  and then demanding that all hockey movies from this day forward be made like Saw.

Modifié par Gatt9, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:24 .

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
truth be told, despite having bought daggerfall, morrowind and oblivion in the past, Bethesdas presentation and inforeleases about skyrim makes me want that particular game less and less.

I didn't bother following SKyrim -- TES games I pick up from bargain bins or disgruntled friends. What did you take away from the presentation that you didn't like?

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.

Why?

I don't find anything odd in it. Most of Biowares RPG fans players allready know what Mass Effetc serie is. Do you think they can find more NEW players with RPG mechanics than fast sci-fi combat actions?

Point been, there is no point to advertise for customers, who are allready your customers.

Bad logic.  You could find even more new players by making it like Farmville,  but that wouldn't make it a better RPG.

What showing ACTION RPG has to do with better RPG?

Showing you as hardcore classic RPG player, who doesn't accept action RPG, action RPG features, doesn't do anything, because it's NEVER gonna be good enough for you, until it's pure RPG. So why waste time for wrong customer base.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

Bad logic.  You could find even more new players by making it like Farmville,  but that wouldn't make it a better RPG.

You don't develop games based on what genre is currently selling the most units,  like what they're doing right now.  That buisness plan gets you exactly what they have right now.  2010 was month after month of losses,  despite 800lb gorillas releasing.  2011 is a little more than half losses,  down from the already dropping 2010. 

Ignoring diversity and releasing the same game over and over leads to industry collapse.  There's a reason why Hollywood doesn't make only movies about Pirates because Pirates of the Caribbean has made over 4 billion dollars,  it's because saturation leads to exodus.

That isn't an accurate comparison.  Pirates is one movie series within the genre of action/adventure.  Hollywood doesn't only make action/adventure movies but it makes a whole lot more of them than art films (RPGs)  Further, Hollywood is all about doing the same thing over an over.  I mean right now, what is hot is turning every comic into a movie, even rebooting comics that have already been a movie (Spider-man?). 

Bioware problems just seem to stem from EA's current leadership's belief that they can just release a ton of shooters annually and profit.  Bioware's problems are all Suit & Tie.

EA has 2 shooters out of 11 games that were shown at E3, which aligns with the rest of the industry at about 20% (not going to repost my entire breakdown again it is on pg 108).  I don't see 20% as being an overwhelming percentage.

If the box says RTS,  I really don't expect to find a Shooter inside.  Since I hate fighters,  I'm also pretty confident that any game with that label isn't something I want to look into. 

The genres work just fine.

Plus,  you may want to take a moment to notice all the shades of sub-genres in movies.  Horror's one of the easier ones:  Slasher,  Shocker,  Torture-porn,  Suspense,  and one other one I can think of. 

You can't claim it works for movies and not games.  It's the same difference.  The only problem is,  in games,  people keep trying to make one genre into another for some strange reason.  It's like claiming Slap Shot is a horror movie because someone wears a goalie mask,  and then demanding that all hockey movies from this day forward be made like Saw.

I fail to see the RPG label on the ME2 box or on the website.  I see " wage intense shooter combat" on the box.  The ME1 box was vague with  "thrilling tactical combat as you lead an elite squad of three", I mean it isn't really clear what the combat is for ME1 on the box. 

To use your horror example.  Take a movie like Scream.  Sure you classify it as a horror, but it has a lot of comedy in it as it was built upon satirizing the old slasher films, just trying to shoehorn it into horror or slasher subgenre means you aren't accurately describing it.  Scream also helped to revitalize the horror genre at the time and was both popularly and critically sucessful.  Whether that was because or inspite of the non-horror elements I don't know.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

Bad logic.  You could find even more new players by making it like Farmville,  but that wouldn't make it a better RPG.

But this simply assumes that the goal is to make a "better RPG" rather than a better game. You've pulled this rhetorical trick way too many times for it to have any value anymore.

You also don't actually believe what you said there, but since this was an exercise in rhetoric I don't figure that's the real problem here.

If the box says RTS,  I really don't expect to find a Shooter inside.  Since I hate fighters,  I'm also pretty confident that any game with that label isn't something I want to look into. 

The genres work just fine.

The genres work just fine if what you want fits precisely within one of the genres, and if the genres are defined in a manner that's relevant to your personal tastes.

Plus,  you may want to take a moment to notice all the shades of sub-genres in movies.  Horror's one of the easier ones:  Slasher,  Shocker,  Torture-porn,  Suspense,  and one other one I can think of. 

You can't claim it works for movies and not games.

I don't think it works for movies either. Or rather, it only works negatively. If I know someone doesn't like horror movies at all, I won't try to sell him on watching Audition even though I think it's an awesome film. Same thing for trying to sell Battlestar Galactica to someone who dislikes SF.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 juillet 2011 - 10:53 .