1027 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Sigh. Why it needed to change in the first place is beyond me. I really don't get Bioware's new fascination with stripping their titles down to essentially be cinematic action games, with little choice either in general customization or plot choices or combat tactics involved. Obviously I'm just not their target audience anymore. Enjoy the casual crowd Bioware, I guess the hardcore RPG crowd will have to stick to CDPR, Bethesda and Obsidian for actual deep complex RPG's from here on out. It was nice while it lasted I suppose.

---

Zanallen wrote...
Yeah, just like in that Planescape: Torment game. What a load that was.

Okay, that is it.  Yeah, I'm steamed.  And here's my reaction -

I am invoking a new law - and I choose to call it Merin's Law.  It's like Godwin's law, only it's about RPG discussions on the internet instead of discussions in genereal on the internet, and it involves invoking outlier games that are considered by some iconic (specifically thinking Planescape: Torment here, but others like Deus Ex or The Witcher work as well) as somehow dismissing a claim about "what makes an RPG."

P:ST isn't worshipped by all RPG fans, or even all harcore RPG fans.  Plenty of us (yes, me included) found the game tedious and unplayable.  I don't hold it up as any gold, silver, or even aluminum standard of RPGs.  Honestly I find it hard to consider that one an RPG at all as far as I'm concerned.  But that's almost beside the point.

And just because one game doesn't do something doesn't eliminate the genre of games from generally doing something.  You can always find a few instances where something fits outside a classification it belongs in (like, say, the platypus being a mammal), and yet that doesn't mean you have proven the classification invalid.

You have found an outlier.

Everytime you see P:ST invoked, remember, Merin's Law.

-----

and back to the original quote again, followed with...

Atakuma wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
You didn't even read the OP did you?

No I did. its just not the same not being able to find a kick ass new armor for MY party and outfit them how I see fit. Rather than static appearances that may or may not change. Guess people need static looks to identify with a companions personality these days or something.

Agreed. That looks like the overall impression. Instead of motivating BW to go into more customization it looks like people are more interested to get less of it and thus be part of the actual problem: Dumbing down... erm... streamlining and innovation.

That's laughable. You actually believe not being able to dress your companions is dumbing down? You've got back all your armor slots and statistical customization, and yet because you can't see the armor in game, it's dumbed down. That's just silliness.

It's not silliness, it's logic.

I think "dumbing down" is code for "taking away options and complexity."
Removing the ability to change the visual appearance of your adventuring party is, factually, less complex and giving you fewer options than allowing you to change the visual appearance.

I personally don't list "physical appearance control" high on my list of "RPG musts!" and yet if you had it and then you take it away in a sequel it will sting.  That's removing options you had before.
That is simplifying the complexity of the game.
That is what most people mean by "dumbing down."

You call it silliness, I assume, because it's something you don't care about.  I think it's more accurate, and less derogatory, to call it preference.

I find the "need" for a voiced protagonist "silly" as far as I'm concerned, but I refrain from belittling those who prefer it as engaging in "silliness."

Modifié par MerinTB, 30 août 2011 - 09:23 .

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

It removes part of the sastifaction. It's 2011, we're no longer limited in what we can display visually on screen with the hardware we currently have in computer games. It reeks of lazy programing and "streamlining" for the sake of a unique visual look.  Like I really need Isabella to look like a **** for the whole game in order to determine that Yes indeed, she is a ****.  Why remove staples of the genre just for the sake of it? It makes no logical sense and serves such a little purpose to begin with.

1. It would actually be much easier to just give the companions generic bodies and go back to DAO.
2. It makes plenty of sense if you bothered to listen to the devs, and I could just as easily say that seeing armor represented visually on the companions serves little purpose.

I mean it's not like their way of story building in any title has been that drastically different or innovative over the last 10 years to begin with,  Main plot, 2 to 3 major plot quests, sprinkle in side quests here and there rinse repeat each project/property. Except now we have voiced over paraphrasing that has the player guessing at what Sheppard or Hawke or "Insert PC here"  That to me isn't roleplaying, it's somewhat interacting with a predetermined outcome.

1. You just described both Whitcher games as well.
2. Interacting with a predetermined outcome is all it's ever been.

Quite simply, Bioware does not seem to make the type of RPG's I want to play anymore if you can even call them that. Call it melodramatic, or whatever, but I will be voting with my wallet, and it's more than likely my wallet will be saying no going forward when it comes to BW titles.

Just like you did with DA2 right?

[MerinTB]

Atakuma wrote...
1. You just described both Whitcher games as well.

I promise I won't keep doing this, but remember...

the above, that's Merin's Law.

[Zanallen]

@Merin

Then how about just about most jRPGs in existence. The idea that removing visual customization makes a game somehow less complex and more for the casual crowd is laughable.

[ipgd]

MerinTB wrote...

You call it silliness, I assume, because it's something you don't care about.  I think it's more accurate, and less derogatory, to call it preference.

I find the "need" for a voiced protagonist "silly" as far as I'm concerned, but I refrain from belittling those who prefer it as engaging in "silliness."

And wouldn't it be nice if our preferences were not labeled with such derogatory terms as "dumbed down". Because, clearly, any change that reduces the complexity of a feature in any fashion -- even if there are actual reasons for wanting the simpler feature completely unrelated to its complexity or relative lack thereof -- must be done for the sole purpose of catering to people who are too unintelligent to handle something as wildly complicated as characters that change clothes! Simpler is always dumber.

What I would much prefer is to have a game whose features are based on the actual pros and cons of their individual implementations, rather than complexity for complexity's sake.

Modifié par ipgd, 30 août 2011 - 09:30 .

[element eater]

In Exile wrote...
"I want more quests. I don't see why Bioware can't just re-use some areas in the game to give us more quests. I don't care if the game has no unique areas, and they all pretty much look the same. As long as I get the next game in 2 yrs and it has LOTS of content, I'm 100% okay with re-use."

Well, we all saw how that turned out. I'm not saying that what you're suggesting here is the same. But trying to put a feature that isn't 100% super optimized is rolling the dice on a crazy scale. 

hmm... yeh good point.
as a feature tho i think it would be pretty cool if it was done properly its a shame that it doesn't seem to be on the cards. i wonder if it was even considered.

what they're offering now just doesn't real feel like its helping to resolve the issue alot of people had with da2's system, me included. Like i said earliar im hoping that this move isnt representitive of the 'best of both worlds' idea that has been mentioned previously.

Modifié par element eater, 30 août 2011 - 10:25 .

[MerinTB]

Zanallen wrote...
@Merin

Then how about just about most jRPGs in existence. The idea that removing visual customization makes a game somehow less complex and more for the casual crowd is laughable.

This is almost a non-sequitor, so I apologize, but several BioWare people made a big deal about dissing FFXIII and jrpgs in general around DA:O only to have DA2 move much closer to FFXIII than to BG2.

The jrpgs, and I'll try to keep this brief, follow the Wizardry/Ultima games from the 80's, where computers couldn't give you much in the way of graphical control over character appearance (and yet companies like SSI and Origin were trying as long ago as the late 80's when characters were still only a relatively few pixels on the screen) - but they branched in a completely different direction.

Japan kept turn-based while the west moved to real-time.  But the important distinction is that, until very recently (*coughcoughBioWarecoughcough*), most cRPGS (or western RPGs if you prefer) focused more on character creation, development and exploration while Japanese games focused more on identifiable pre-created characters and deep (cut-scene heavy) linear stories.

That's not to say that (to take contemporary examples) Fallout 2 didn't have a story, or that Cloud from FF7 gave you not control over his character growth (well, materia.... maybe they didn't?)... but there's a difference in focus.

The west did "you tell your own story with your own character(s) and explore this vast world" and Japan did "we'll tell you an amazing, carved-in-stone story and let you control the battles and what stats you boost or loot you use."

There are, indeed, outliers in western RPGs (especially depending on how far you stretch that term RPG), as well in some jrpg's... but overall, that's the BIG differences (real-time vs turn-based; open story, open world, create your own character vs linear story with predefined characters.)

BioWare is the biggest proponent of blurring those lines, given up most of the western RPG aspects (saving the real-time part is about it for them) for almost all of the Japanese aspects (except the turn-based combat, really.)

So, my earlier reference to BioWare mocking Square and FFXIII?  Maybe not such a non-sequitor.

[Atakuma]

MerinTB wrote...

You call it silliness, I assume, because it's something you don't care about.  I think it's more accurate, and less derogatory, to call it preference.

I find the "need" for a voiced protagonist "silly" as far as I'm concerned, but I refrain from belittling those who prefer it as engaging in "silliness."

I do care about it, I would prefer it if it went back to the way DAO did it, however I find the term "dumbing down" used on such a superficial feature, incredibly irritating and arrogant. I understand the desire for visual custimization, but in this context they are actually adding complexity, so the whole concept of dumbing down doesn't make any sense.

Modifié par Atakuma, 30 août 2011 - 09:40 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
It's not silliness, it's logic.

I think "dumbing down" is code for "taking away options and complexity."
Removing the ability to change the visual appearance of your adventuring party is, factually, less complex and giving you fewer options than allowing you to change the visual appearance.

I'm going to speak only about visuals below. 

In DA:O you only had 6 options with some retextures, +2 mage options. In DA:O you have several options for the PC, along with 1 unique option for each NPC. 

You have more unique looks for companions in DA2, but less choice in the distribution of those looks.

So you have fewer options in visual apperance, but a greater quanity of appearances. 

Whether or not this means less as a whole is the whole point of the debate we are currently having. 

I personally don't list "physical appearance control" high on my list of "RPG musts!" and yet if you had it and then you take it away in a sequel it will sting.  That's removing options you had before.
That is simplifying the complexity of the game.
That is what most people mean by "dumbing down."

To begin with, this isn't what's happend. We aren't even talking about DA2. 

In DA3, we are apparently going to have more outfits. We will at least have the same number of outfits as in DA2. So the game is not providing us with less here. And we will have more stastistical customization. 

DA3 will be, by that standard, much more complex than DA2. So let's say I actually agree with this very pejorative usage - it's still used wrong, even if the description you give is right. Because DA3 won't be dumbed down. 

More importantly, "dumbed down" can't refer to less options. That would be stupid (ha-ha). For one, the # of options have nothing to do with intelligence. Arguably, one feature of intelligence is the ability to filter, so less options = smartening up. But I disgress. The phrase has a particularly insulting connotation. Defending it, and then talking about "preference" doesn't cover how insulting it is. 

You call it silliness, I assume, because it's something you don't care about.  I think it's more accurate, and less derogatory, to call it preference.

I find the "need" for a voiced protagonist "silly" as far as I'm concerned, but I refrain from belittling those who prefer it as engaging in "silliness."

But you find the need for iconic looks silly, and you certainly are happy to refer to it as "dumbing down" or at least endorse and defend the usage, right? 

Certainly you want to call it visual customization and not a preference for visual customization, so if you're going to defend the rhetoric, at least see how pervasive it is in your own speech. 

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
What, like in DAO? I don't recall there being an overflow of complaints about it.  

You didn't see the ****ing and mocking about the magical robes of boob growth, and how Morrigain magically changes cup size and build in the romance scenes?

If you suddenly have every NPC morph body types, you make it a lot more visible. For one, graphical fidelity will only increase, making the morphs more visible. 

As far as the amount of work involved, it would be the same scale of work DAO required (or less if there's no qunari companion), plus the work designing the iconic appearances. Maybe that's a lot... seems do-able to me.

Actually, a qunari NPC means much more work, because the qunari are very different from the "tall human" DA:O qunari. 

As for "seems" ... well, that's a matter of fact. 

For that matter, if there's ever a race choice again, then they'll have to do that much work anyway. Unless the protagonist gets an iconic appearance too.

Unless, like Morrigain (who was lither with a smaller cup size), we have skinny qunari, fat elf, or one-armed man. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 09:44 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvianus wrote...
We are talking about a feature that has always been present in Bioware games. And has long been part of that style. If a feature needs to be removed that is for justifications that worth the sacrifice.[/quote]

"The way it always was" is a bad justification. Explaining how it always was that way doesn't make it less of a bad justification. 

[quote]Something was always there, people expect to find it again. This is normal and justified. yes, totally. We can not make judgments of value without examples and things of the past. There is no universal definition, so they have to refer to subjective views. And these views are based on concrete things.[/quote]

No, that isn't justified. It doesn't matter how much you appeal to sentiment (also a bad justification).

[quote]To remove customization, make look bad the rpg depending on the other examples in the past. Comparisons are extremely important to be on the value of a current item. So that's totally justified if they think Bioware take the wrong way because they remove an important feature.[/quote]

We're not removing customization. We allegedly have multiple outfits (2 or 3) and statistical customization like DA:O. You say that's less. I say that's more, because I have 8 companion NPCs that each look unique instead of 12 NPCs that end up wearing the same armour with a different texture. 

It's up for debate if there's less customization. 

[quote]Obviously it's not only because they were present in the past, that people expect to see the customization in bioware games and this kind of games. But because they also have a definition of what should be a game like this, based also from their experience in the past. To each his opinions about it. [/quote]

Again, "the way it always was" isn't a good justification.

[quote]There were choices in the rpgs of the past, it will be linear in the future, no more choices, that is still an rpg ? People can think no,, that not an rpg anymore,if they compare to the past and not only to some definitions as well. [/quote]

Or they could think the RPGs of the past sucked, and RPGs are only getting better. You won't find me crying for the days of BG or PS:T, because I think both are mediocre games that have aged very badly, unlike games like Deus Ex. 




[/quote]

[MerinTB]

MerinTB wrote...
You call it silliness, I assume, because it's
something you don't care about.  I think it's more accurate, and less
derogatory, to call it preference.

I find the "need" for a voiced
protagonist "silly" as far as I'm concerned, but I refrain from
belittling those who prefer it as engaging in "silliness."

----

ipgd wrote...
And wouldn't it be nice if our preferences were not labeled with such derogatory terms as "dumbed down". Because, clearly, any change that reduces the complexity of a feature in any fashion -- even if there are actual reasons for wanting the simpler feature completely unrelated to its complexity or relative lack thereof -- must be done for the sole purpose of catering to people who are too unintelligent to handle something as wildly complicated as characters that change clothes! Simpler is always dumber.

What I would much prefer is to have a game whose features are based on the actual pros and cons of their individual implementations, rather than complexity for complexity's sake.

See, you are just taking that too personally there.

"Dumbing down" game mechanics isn't calling those who like the simplification "dumb."

I know there are rude people who make such claims, like there are those who like to call people who prefer PC gaming to console gaming "PC master race" and other such sarcastic thing, but in the end you are upset about the wrong thing...

Be upset witht those who say people who like the changes are "dumb" - you have every right to be as those people are claiming their preferences are more important than yours.  They are not more important, just different.  Just theirs as opposed to yours.

But to call simplification "dumbing down" is just slang implying things are made less complex and easier to do/understand.  I think everyone can agree that this is more often than not a good thing - who REALLY wants to go back to using punch cards for computers or having to do everything in a non-graphical environment like DOS?  How many people really would rather bike across country than take a car or plane?  You want to start a fire the boy scout way or do you enjoy the convenience of matches (or dare I say, the dumbed down ease of a lighter!)

The difference with games, especially games that are (historically by design) more complicated, is that what draws many people to those games is the complication and the options.

Hell, ask any 3.5 D&D fan who HATES WITH A PASSION 4E D&D.  There's so much backlash that an upstart company created a 3.5 contiuation clone, Pathfinder, that successfully battles D&D for the "best-selling" slot for table-top RPGs.  Or ask Magic the Gathering fans if they'd rather the game only let you play with a handful of pre-made decks with little to no customization - that'd be dumbing down MTG, and might increase your playerbase if the logic holds that easier equals more players.

In the end, I agree with you (in concept) that people saying you are dumb for wanting simpler are being obnoxious.  But calling the simiplication of game mechanics "dumbing down" isn't, inherently, saying ANYTHING about people who like those changes.

----

and again using the top quote to start...

Atakuma wrote...
I do care about it, I would prefer it if
it went back to the way DAO did it, however I find the term "dumbing
down" used on such a superficial feature, incredibly irritating and
arrogant. I understand the desire for visual custimization, but in this
context they are actually adding complexity, so the whole concept of
dumbing down doesn't make any sense.

See above.  You are, perhaps, reading too much into the "dumbing down" classification.

Modifié par MerinTB, 30 août 2011 - 09:50 .

[Zanallen]

Really, without stats being in the equation, visual customization is not at all complex. There is nothing complex about deciding if you want your character to wear the lime green combat boots or the fuchsia thigh-highs. It is merely a feature and one that Bioware is not cutting. They are changing the implementation. You can still choose what you want your companions to wear and when you want them to wear it. You just have a smaller list this time around and the outfits come in sets rather than individual pieces.

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

Filament wrote...
What, like in DAO? I don't recall there being an overflow of complaints about it.  

You didn't see the ****ing and mocking about the magical robes of boob growth, and how Morrigain magically changes cup size and build in the romance scenes? 

I didn't. The most compliants that I saw was she took off her string to put on a bra to have *romance*. It was a bit...silly.

[MerinTB]

Huh, okay, I just took the fifteen seconds that Google needs for you to research anything and did learn that "dumbing down" is considered a pejorative.

That's never how I used it or read it in the context of the majority of where I saw it.

So, in that sense, I stand corrected. It's largely seen as an insult to those that the "dumbing down" is targeted at.

And yet -

I still agree with the concept. As a whole. Everything is being oversimplified and everyone, as a result, are being challenged less and, as further result, society as a whole is becoming less critical and less intelligent.

But that's neither here nor there...

I guess I better stop saying "dumbed down" in mixed company as, clearly, it was a phrase that I was at least partially misinterpreting.

My apologies.

[ipgd]

MerinTB wrote...

In the end, I agree with you (in concept) that people saying you are dumb for wanting simpler are being obnoxious.  But calling the simiplication of game mechanics "dumbing down" isn't, inherently, saying ANYTHING about people who like those changes.

Then what's up with getting all pained about the word "silly"? I'm not upset, I just think it's a bit silly that you'd be bothered by that while simultaneously endorsing the use of a term, slang though it may be, that is inherently prejorative and implies that there's something, I don't know, dumb about it. I've certainly never heard of anything that could be described as "dumb" and still acceptable to like or agree with or partake in. Generally, people who do or like dumb things are perceived as dumb by association.

It's also one of those stupid ridiculous buzzwords that people repeat without giving any actual consideration to what the words means other than the fact it is part of the vocabulary list of 'People Who Are Right Well Cross About Everything Bioware Does', with all definitions of the terms being "anything I don't like".

[FieryDove]

MerinTB wrote...

And yet -

I still agree with the concept. As a whole. Everything is being oversimplified and everyone, as a result, are being challenged less and, as further result, society as a whole is becoming less critical and less intelligent.

Reading this the movie Idiocracy comes to mind for some odd reason.

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
The romance scenes could have used a special underwear morph to fit her body specifically, if they really wanted it to.

Yes of course I remember those complaints, key word being "overflow."

The changes in DA:O were very subtle. Depending on how the characters are designed (e.g. like Isabella's body in DA3) suddenly things like bust size changing might become very obvious. 

That's what I was saying... if there's not a qunari companion that means there's less work than in DAO, where we had Sten who needed to be fitted too.

And not having multiple races for the PC means less work too, but you'll agree with me that's not a defence.

Yes, that falls under the "drawbacks." Ones that again, don't bother me personally when they're different on the level of Morrigan or Isabela, and I don't personally see much value in the possibility to have morbidly obese or paper thin adventuring companions. Though a one-armed man could hypothetically wear normal armor and have an animation rig where his "missing arm" is always limp.

So that means you have to design every single armour set with a limp. 

As for a thin companion... look no further than Anders. We already had him. His arms are just rail thin, and so he gets his own mesh. 

Him changing armour (like Hawke's mage starter) would mean he buffs up like Hawke does in his champion gear. 

And for ones that are too "different" to defy all suspension of disbelief, they could still do the unique outfit style for them, then. But those tend to be outliers. That doesn't mean generic bodies wouldn't still work or be worth it for most companions.

They wouldn't be worth it in virtue of being generic. All people of the same height, same build. That's a negative in itself. Except, of course, you don't care. Even on aesthetic grounds. 

[ipgd]

[quote]Filament wrote...

Yes, that falls under the "drawbacks." Ones that again, don't bother me personally when they're different on the level of Morrigan or Isabela, and I don't personally see much value in the possibility to have morbidly obese or paper thin adventuring companions. Though a one-armed man could hypothetically wear normal armor and have an animation rig where his "missing arm" is always limp.[/quote]
That would require a special mesh, too, though, unless he like... has a fake foam arm under there. Which is a liiiittllee cray cray.

[/quote]And for ones that are too "different" to defy all suspension of disbelief, they could still do the unique outfit style for them, then. But those tend to be outliers. That doesn't mean generic bodies wouldn't still work or be worth it for most companions.
[/quote]
See, in my special fantasy world all companions would be so physically distinct from the default body that it would be jarringly obvious if they swapped into it. Like, how people's bodies are like in real life. So, while most companions' bodies would work for that right now, I see that as a remnant of technological limitations rather than an actual ideal. Which DA2's implementation is certainly not, but it's a step closer to it for me than generic armor models would be.

[Sylvianus]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Sylvianus wrote...
We are talking about a feature that has always been present in Bioware games. And has long been part of that style. If a feature needs to be removed that is for justifications that worth the sacrifice.[/quote]


"The way it always was" is a bad justification. Explaining how it always was that way doesn't make it less of a bad justification. 

[quote]Something was always there, people expect to find it again. This is normal and justified. yes, totally. We can not make judgments of value without examples and things of the past. There is no universal definition, so they have to refer to subjective views. And these views are based on concrete things.[/quote]

No, that isn't justified. It doesn't matter how much you appeal to sentiment (also a bad justification).

[quote]To remove customization, make look bad the rpg depending on the other examples in the past. Comparisons are extremely important to be on the value of a current item. So that's totally justified if they think Bioware take the wrong way because they remove an important feature.[/quote]

We're not removing customization. We allegedly have multiple outfits (2 or 3) and statistical customization like DA:O. You say that's less. I say that's more, because I have 8 companion NPCs that each look unique instead of 12 NPCs that end up wearing the same armour with a different texture. 

It's up for debate if there's less customization. 

[quote]Obviously it's not only because they were present in the past, that people expect to see the customization in bioware games and this kind of games. But because they also have a definition of what should be a game like this, based also from their experience in the past. To each his opinions about it. [/quote]

Again, "the way it always was" isn't a good justification.

[quote]There were choices in the rpgs of the past, it will be linear in the future, no more choices, that is still an rpg ? People can think no,, that not an rpg anymore,if they compare to the past and not only to some definitions as well. [/quote]

Or they could think the RPGs of the past sucked, and RPGs are only getting better. You won't find me crying for the days of BG or PS:T, because I think both are mediocre games that have aged very badly, unlike games like Deus Ex. [/quote]
[/quote]
1- Poor justification to expect to find a feature again like customization, companions interactions,  choices, in the next bioware game because it has always been the case ? not at all, and especially ridiculous to think that. Or so says me, explains, I do'nt really follow your point. If bioware, decides to withdraw an important feature that has always embodied a part of its game, who gave pleasure in each game, without solid reasons, they can be angry.  People can totally expect to find this again, and definitely define the quality of a production with or without theses features, from their experience.

2 - Not at all. It is very important and all discussions, debates, in this forum were based precisely on that.

3 - And I was not talking about " less customization ", I was spirited to point those who claimed to want to remove the customization because the characters were supposed to be independent. When you quote, try to be accurate.

4 - You do not read or you simplifies everything you read. And what you say makes no sense because it would mean that people would not know what to expect from a next Bioware game, and not even to know what to expect and what to want for the future rpgs. They couldn't define what mean a rpg for them.

5 - You, you. The others are not you. it's not because you do not share their view that the justification of their position is not healthy. And that's probably why you do not really know. You do not share their ideas based on a concept close to the tradition, good for you, but it's still a valid point, even if you preferred you, more of anti-conformism. And that's mainly the subject of this year, what to keep from traditional rpgs, and what to change.

Buf if people use their experience from the past to define what has to be a rpg, their reasons aren't invalide, and their reasons to be angry, because we remove theses features that were important in the past, aren't at all bad justifications. You may not agree, but, still correct.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2011 - 10:20 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

Huh, okay, I just took the fifteen seconds that Google needs for you to research anything and did learn that "dumbing down" is considered a pejorative.

It has the word "dumb" in it. Did you really need to research it to think it was a pejorative? 

That's never how I used it or read it in the context of the majority of where I saw it.

I've never seen it used in a context where it wasn't an insult. Hell, you defended it in a context where it was used as an insult!

So, in that sense, I stand corrected. It's largely seen as an insult to those that the "dumbing down" is targeted at.

Or the people who think the feature is an improvement and not dumb at all. 

If I used troglodyte to refer to anyone who wanted DA:O features to return to DA3, you can bet people would take it as an insult and let me have it. And they should, too, because discourse like that just poisons the well. 

I still agree with the concept. As a whole. Everything is being oversimplified and everyone, as a result, are being challenged less and, as further result, society as a whole is becoming less critical and less intelligent.

So it's totally not a pejorative... except you agree with the sentinment and see it being used only on features that make people less critical and inteligent. Well, obviously being critical and intelligent couldn't be good things, because otherwise it would sound like the concept would be a pejorative!

Even suggesting that a brand (not even the as a whole concept, because arguably we have it, and have a better version!) of visual customization is removed really signifies a social trend is beyond absurd. 

[In Exile]

Sylvianus wrote...
1- Poor justification to expect to find a feature again like customization, companions interactions,  choices, in the next bioware game because it has always been the case ?

Yes, absolutely. For one, for the player, the research needs to be done. If you buy a game without doing the research, you deserve to be cheated. 

More generally, for the designer, a feature should never be included just because the previous version had it and no one complained.

not at all, and especially ridiculous to think that. Or so says me, explains, I do'nt really follow your point. If bioware, decides to withdraw an important feature that has always embodied a part of its game, who gave pleasure in each game, without solid reasons, people expect to find this again, and definitely define the quality of a production with or without theses features, from their experience.

First of all, whether or not wearing an exchangable universal mesh made the game better for anyone is up for debate. Ditto whether that's what makes an RPG. The whole reason for this debate (esp. between us two) is that we don't agree on whether any of this was ever true. 

Other than the fact it was in previous versions of Bioware games. And again, that's not a defence.

3 - And I was not talking about " less customization ", I was spirited to point those who claimed to want to remove the customization because the characters were supposed to be independent. When you quote, try to be accurate.

But that isn't customization to them. You're trying to skew the debate.

4 - You do not read or you simplifies everything you read. And what you say makes no sense because it would mean that people would not know what to expect from a next Bioware game, and not even to know what to expect and what to want for the future rpgs.

People shouldn't know this. They should do the research. Pure and simple. If people buy a game based only on the company, I honestly hope they get cheated every single time. That kind of laziness deserves as much. 

5 - You, you. The others are not you. it's not because you do not share their view that the justification of their position is not healthy. And that's probably why you do not really know. You do not share their ideas based on a concept close to the tradition, good for you, but it's still a valid point, even if you preferred you, more of anti-conformism. And that's mainly the subject of this year, what to keep from traditional rpgs, and what to change.  

The others are not you either. 

But we are speaking about justification in general. And in general, "let's keep it the same because it was always like that!" is a bad justification. "Let's keep it the same because everyone likes that!" is a better argument, but that's totally independent of how it was done. 

Buf if people use their experience from the past to define what has to be a rpg, their reasons aren't invalide, and their reasons to be angry, because we remove theses feature that were important in the past, aren't at all bad justifications. You may not agree, but, still, tat's correct.

No, in that case the justification is "like" not "past". It should stay how it was always done because I like it, the justification follows after because and is the I like it part of the sentence. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 10:22 .

[Zanallen]

Quick question! How does the ability to choose between different pieces of completely superficial armor somehow promote critical thinking or intelligence? Creativity, I could see, but not critical thinking or intelligence. There is nothing critical about choosing between the muave gloves or the burgandy ones.

Modifié par Zanallen, 30 août 2011 - 10:23 .