477 réponses à ce sujet

[Dycerrrr]

gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-fans-accessible-dyce-99145/

BioWare's marketing boss gave an interview that scared the crap out of me. Apparently all the decisions I made over the past two games are going to result in 'subtle nods' for me in my story. And according to him, it's not even that likely that I remember all the choices I made in my first and second playthroughs (?!?!?!?!)

Modifié par Dycerrrr, 08 août 2011 - 09:07 .

[Captain_Obvious]

Dycerrrr wrote...

I don't really think it's "biased" to ask a legitimate question

It is when you only ask leading questions. 

"Do you think RPGs are evolving or dying?"  This question presupposes that those are the only two alternatives. The question has already pre-determined what one of two choices the answer must be.  A more appropriate question would be "Do you think RPGs are changing?" followed up by "If so, how do you view those changes?"  This would give the surveyee a chance to answer the question without slogging through the surveyor's preconceptions. 

For what it's worth, most people use the term "evolution" to refer to a transition from a lower form of something to a higher or more progressive state, and that is not an accurate use of the term.  Evolution as a concept does not presuppose progress; it simply presupposes change.  My reading of the question they wrote would be "Do you think RPGs are changing or dying?" In my opinion, this question makes no sense. Of course RPGs are changing, or we'd all still be tabletop games.     

[Sarevok Synder]

Dycerrrr wrote...

gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-fans-accessible-dyce-99145/

BioWare's marketing boss gave an interview that scared the crap out of me. Apparently all the decisions I made over the past two games are going to result in 'subtle nods' for me in my story. And according to him, it's not even that likely that I remember all the choices I made in my first and second playthroughs (?!?!?!?!)

I wish I could say I'm surprised.  This is sounding more and more like the spin that was put on DA2. This guy clearly thinks we're all a bit thick.

[Icinix]

Dycerrrr wrote...

gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-fans-accessible-dyce-99145/

BioWare's marketing boss gave an interview that scared the crap out of me. Apparently all the decisions I made over the past two games are going to result in 'subtle nods' for me in my story. And according to him, it's not even that likely that I remember all the choices I made in my first and second playthroughs (?!?!?!?!)

Yeah - that interview has been the subject of much debate.

Some of what Silverman said is certainly caused me to go WTF, but that said, he's just a little bit hyper, and tries to make sure the untapped audience isn't going to overlook ME3 because they haven't played the first two.  I wouldn't worry.

I'm pretty sure the developers are very much aware that existing players care about their love interests, and have intimate knowledge of every little sidequest they did and what planet they were on when they stumbled on a little hidden outpost that took their interest.

[Dionkey]

Dycerrrr wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Making something "easier and more accessible" is like taking all of the plays out of a sport and just letting them run around trying to score points. The idea that we need to make the games less complex (What game in reality is so complex that it's a chore? Aside from EVE and X3) to create a market for a generation that is unwilling to adapt is RIDICULOUS and downright insulting to the people who have been here the whole time.

...clap...clap...clap. Thank you.

No problem 

[ShadowSplicer]

RPG =/= lolstatsandequipment

RPG = Good story, choices, and immersion.

It's called a ROLE PLAYING GAME people, live with it. Last I checked, I don't need billions of useless crap items and menus to sort through in order to be in the role and role play.

[Gatt9]

RPG's are dying.

Evolving implies that it is retaining it's genre,  while adding to the previously used mechanics.  Fallout's and Baldur's Gate's addition of NPC party members with personalities was evolution,  BG2's romances was evolution,  the shift from Armor class to Damage Resistance was evolution.

Making a Shooter(ME2) or an Adventure game(Oblivion, Skyrim) and calling it an RPG isn't evolution,  it's mislabelling.  They all lack the qualities of an RPG,  and embody the qualities the other genres are defined by. 

RPG's are dying,  being replaced by Mass-Market games for people who want to pretend they're RPGers,  but actually hate RPGs.  This very board illustrates that quite regularly,  with people claiming Self-insertion is an RPG,  and often giving definitions that make Super Mario Bros an RPG by following the logic.

The reason for this is simple,  the publishers are severely over-extended and in danger of bankruptcy.  Specifically EA and Zenimax.

EA spent nearly 800 million buying Bioware,  and tens of millions more on Star Wars development.  But Bioware's never been a sufficiently heavy hitter to warrant 800 million,  flipping through sales figures shows they have don't usually break 5 million copies with their games.  EA paid for Star Wars,  not Bioware.  Bulletstorm underperformed,  DS2 underperformed,  DA2 bombed hard,  so did Shadows of the somethingorother (Selling only 24,000 units).  Then they turn around and drop nearly 1 billion on Popcap,  years after Bejewled and Peggle ran their course.  Meanwhile,  they're using some creative accounting in their quarterlies,  reporting units shipped to stores as revenue,  which they stand a good chance of having to take charge-back on.  EA's spent too much money,  and had too many underperformers,  to be comfortable with anything that isn't aimed at "Mass market".

Zenimax is no better,  spending huge amounts of money buying studios left and right,  with only Bethseda releasing games.  ID isn't relevant anymore,  Fallout underperformed badly,  Fallout NV was sabotaged by Bethseda forcing it to ship early.  Meanwhile Zeni had to borrow money to make their purchases,  they can't handle a run of failed games.

So what do they do?

Aim everything at the mass-market,  specifically the Shooters since they're the biggest market segment.  Rip out RPG elements and replace them with Shooter elements so that they can pull in the "Bang!  Bang!" crowds that hate RPG mechanics in the hopes that they'll sell enough units to keep going.

RPG's are dying,  but so is the rest of the Industry.  Coalescing all gaming down into one genre is just going to create massive gamer fatigue.  Most of E3 was a Shooter,  with very little difference between them.  Making everyone play the same game endlessly is just going to make people quit playing games,  just like making people watch the same TV show does.  Such as the Reality Show craze which killed the genre by having so many near-identical shows. 

The Industry requires 24 months to shift gears,  with the next 12-24 months being pretty much all shooters,  by the time they realize the full impact of Gamer Fatigue,  it'll take them way too long to shift gears and diversify.  We're going to see a massive crash,  that's very likely to wipe out pretty much all of the familiar names in the Industry.  EA and Zenimax are two of the bigger canidates for industry shaking crashes,  especially as EA's having a really hard time keeping the NFL license locked down now.

[ThanesSniper]

Gatt9 wrote...

Making a Shooter(ME2) or an Adventure game(Oblivion, Skyrim) and calling it an RPG isn't evolution,  it's mislabelling.  They all lack the qualities of an RPG,  and embody the qualities the other genres are defined by. 

I stopped reading there. Once the "qualities of an RPG" are clearly set and defined, then I'll take your post at face value.

Unfortunately for the RPG qualities, there's this:

Wusword77 wrote...

This rant should have started by explaining what an RPG is, before asking if the genre is evolving or dying.

Considering when you ask 10 people what an RPG is and you get 10 different answers this rant is kind of pointless.

Modifié par ThanesSniper, 09 août 2011 - 12:49 .

[PrinceOfFallout13]

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

[In Exile]

It's funny, but with that poll, I'd clearly pick depth and customization. I'd also say ME2 was a better RPG than ME1.

[Nohvarr]

The OP has posted this same thought a lot, and their opinion on the subject is well known and documented, as are those of some of his supporters. So my question is, why are we beating this dead horse again?

[SalsaDMA]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

To expect the games to always stay the same is just silly.

End of thread. End of discussion.

But any change is not necesarily a good change.

Something some people seem to forget.

Whatever. That's not the point. And that's YOUR OPINION.

Don't like it, don't buy it, don't playt it, sell it.

Edit: Oh, and just one thing I forgot: DEAL WITH IT.

Way to miss a point.

Or are you really of the opinion that "any change is a good change" ?

If so, you need your school money back

[SalsaDMA]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

[In Mass Effect] An incredibly robust inventory, weapon and armor system allowed different ammo types to be equipped for dealing with different enemies, and armor could be upgraded, adapted, bought and sold from different vendors across the universe.

LOL

When you describe it like that, a shit sandwich sounds appetizing. Mass Effect had far from a "robust inventory, weapon and armor system." Hell, Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a FAR better weapon loadout, because the weapons you can select from are actually different in meaningful ways. Mass Effect's armor and weapon upgrades were a good concept marred by their repetitive nature. And vendoring/omnigelling trash hardly counts as a robust internal economy.

Really? Cause it's really the same to me wether I'm using an XM8, a steyr, or any of the other assault rifles I've unlocked so far. Unlocking scopes made a difference, the weapons? Not really.

The inventory UI in ME1 sucked, nobody will argue against that. But being unable to distinguish between a crappy UI and a game mechanic doesn't exactly make you a prime candidate for telling people about design.

[SalsaDMA]

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

So you honestly think that, say, "Serious Sam", "Aliens versus Predator" or "Max Payne" are role playing games? Just to throw out some random game names...

[HTTP 404]

I think this belongs in the off-topic section.

I think video games, much less rpgs, are evolving. Right now, cinematic story driven video games are becoming/is popular. Look at need for speed, they are making a new one that is story driven with "rpg" stats. RPG, imo, is too generic, too big to be a class on its own. Only rpgs have sub genres of types. Action Rpgs, Jrpgs, Paper pencil rpgs, etc. I guess my point is, is that any change is evolution. But looking at where it evolved from, I suppose you can say rpgs like we used to know is dying. This is a cup half full question and no one is going to right or wrong about their point of view here.

This topic can be an entire college course entitled "The evolution of video games" I highly doubt anyone is going to walk away from this thread enlightened. Perhaps a little frustrated and digging of heels.

[HTTP 404]

SalsaDMA wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

So you honestly think that, say, "Serious Sam", "Aliens versus Predator" or "Max Payne" are role playing games? Just to throw out some random game names...

yes, why not?  I could be role playing as serious sam, Predator, and max payne in a game.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 09 août 2011 - 12:49 .

[SalsaDMA]

HTTP 404 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

So you honestly think that, say, "Serious Sam", "Aliens versus Predator" or "Max Payne" are role playing games? Just to throw out some random game names...

yes, why not?  I could be role playing as serious sam, Predator, and max payne in a game.

Riiiiiight.....

I know you're just trolling now with that kind of comment

[marshalleck]

HTTP 404 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

So you honestly think that, say, "Serious Sam", "Aliens versus Predator" or "Max Payne" are role playing games? Just to throw out some random game names...

yes, why not?  I could be role playing as serious sam, Predator, and max payne in a game.

Ugh. 

[HTTP 404]

SalsaDMA wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

doesnt rpg stand for role playing game?

theres no such thing as rpg elements

since in every game you play a role of whatever the game offers as the main character

So you honestly think that, say, "Serious Sam", "Aliens versus Predator" or "Max Payne" are role playing games? Just to throw out some random game names...

yes, why not?  I could be role playing as serious sam, Predator, and max payne in a game.

Riiiiiight.....

I know you're just trolling now with that kind of comment

then why ask the question in the first place? 

Also to clarify, I was playing devils advocate....Perspective is very different for different people is my point.  How I know or you know rpg isn't going to be the same as the next person.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 09 août 2011 - 12:55 .

[sedrikhcain]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Making a Shooter(ME2) or an Adventure game(Oblivion, Skyrim) and calling it an RPG isn't evolution,  it's mislabelling.  They all lack the qualities of an RPG,  and embody the qualities the other genres are defined by. 

Wow...ok I also stopped reading.

Oblivion and Skyrim aren't RPG's? Really? I don't even play those games (I watched someone on youtube playing them to see if I wanted to get the game) and I know they're RPG's...

This is the whole crux of the problem. Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes an RPG and for some people, any deviation from whatever set image is in their head makes it a non-rpg. I think this is limiting for consumers and developers. We should not be dominated by pre-conceived notions about genre. It's confining and opressive. Embrace the game, no matter what, or reject it on its own merits, but don't do either because it does/doesn't fit into some hardwired idea about genre. It would be great if we could ditch the labels entirely.

[sedrikhcain]

Icinix wrote...

Dycerrrr wrote...

gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-fans-accessible-dyce-99145/

BioWare's marketing boss gave an interview that scared the crap out of me. Apparently all the decisions I made over the past two games are going to result in 'subtle nods' for me in my story. And according to him, it's not even that likely that I remember all the choices I made in my first and second playthroughs (?!?!?!?!)

Yeah - that interview has been the subject of much debate.

Some of what Silverman said is certainly caused me to go WTF, but that said, he's just a little bit hyper, and tries to make sure the untapped audience isn't going to overlook ME3 because they haven't played the first two.  I wouldn't worry.

I'm pretty sure the developers are very much aware that existing players care about their love interests, and have intimate knowledge of every little sidequest they did and what planet they were on when they stumbled on a little hidden outpost that took their interest.

Silverman always makes my stomach turn with his rhetoric. He's a PR guy, to the hilt. That's his job and he never lets up.