597 réponses à ce sujet

[Bogsnot1]

Halo Quea wrote...
And of course this was better 

>LAUNCHING PROBE
>LAUNCHING PROBE
>LAUNCHING PROBE
>LAUNCHING PROBE
Oh yeah, that's evolution.  <_<

*Fires up Gibbed's*

Launch what now? 

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

But that does not mean that for each single person who finds a game too complicated that there isn't two or more who are interested due to this depth and such. A barrier to some is a reason to buy for others. The one thing that could come close but in no way solid proof one way or other is have Bioware since mentioning this MP seen a truly vast increase in pre-orders or a slight decline.

The casual audience is larger than the core audience. That alone works against your claim. It's not about complexity, but ease of entry. If I told you that in order to watch Schindler's List, you needed an in-depth account of World War II, that's going to serve against your attempts at getting a substantial number of people from watching the film. Baldur's Gate 1, while a decent game, didn't really provide anything close to a learning curve for new players, aside from explaining how attributes work, which is just the tip of the iceberg in DnD.

Edit: Compare that even to an RTS, like Warcraft III. There certainly is a learning curve, if you're hoping to be a halfway decent player, but the main game provides a great method to slowly pick up all these tricks, how to organize/use different units, etc. Something like Baldur's Gate didn't really allow for that. You started the game with every stat in place, except multi-classing options.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:04 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Walker White wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Btu that does not mean that for each single person who finds a game too complicated that there isn't two or more who are interested due to this depth and such. A barrier to some is a reason to buy for others.

This is both right and wrong depending on how you look at it. Depth and complexity is definitely a selling factor, as long as you have a gentle learning curve to bring new players into the game at the beginning. So they grow into the complexity over time. Indeed, this is one of the nice features avout leveling. You start with very few options in order to learn how to play, and options only open up as you progress.

But starting with the complexity in the beginning loses more than it gains. This has been shown time and time again.

Yes and the best way is to put into content inside game additional tools and gameplay that can build up that understanding of mechanics rather than strip them out in order to put less effort developer side in explaining which then leaves a lower depth game overall due to this simplification rather than expansion of tutorials and extra gameplay content to explain the more deep/in depth game.

[shepskisaac]

Walker White wrote...

As we saw from the death of the fighter genre, only appealing to your core base means that you have dwindling players over time until you die.

And as we saw with Rock Band, Guitar Hero and basically the entire Wii collection, appealing solely to casuals ain't working either.

Walker White wrote...

So you have to have a casual component to bring in new players. But the key challenge is to make the game in such a way that the casual gamers for your game can become core over time. This is the whole "simple to learn, difficult to master" concept. And while some RPG fans may not be happy with it, this is one of the reasons for streamlining mechanics. If you give a new player too much choice at the beginning, they get lost and bewildered and will never become core. So your player base narrows and narrows, until it disappears.

That's exactly what Nintendo thought would happen with Wii, and as we now know it didn't really work out. Their Wii Resort gamers didn't convert into hardcore Zelda fans. The truth is, the majority of people can't be converted into core/hardcore gamers.

The key should be creating great navitagion, menus & inventories that are intuitive & simple to use for everyone, while at the same time giving deep option for people who want it. (optional) Help systems/icons, auto-leveling etc. There are countless ways to make the casuals not scared of overblown cluster**** in menus. What I see from ME3's level-up screen & weapon customization looks very promising, well-designed and intuitive for everyone, both hardcore & casual. And that's what they should've done in ME2, after the complaints that the menus in ME1 were awful, instead of removing all systems all together.

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

But that does not mean that for each single person who finds a game too complicated that there isn't two or more who are interested due to this depth and such. A barrier to some is a reason to buy for others. The one thing that could come close but in no way solid proof one way or other is have Bioware since mentioning this MP seen a truly vast increase in pre-orders or a slight decline.

The casual audience is larger than the core audience. That alone works against your claim. It's not about complexity, but ease of entry. If I told you that in order to watch Schindler's List, you needed an in-depth account of World War II, that's going to serve against you attempts at getting a substantial number of people from watching the film. Baldur's Gate 1, while a decent game, didn't really provide anything close to a learning curve for new players, aside from explaining how attributes work, which is just the tip of the iceberg in DnD.

I am casual and I am core, I do not think a lot of people understand what casual actually means in terms of gamers. Casual is does not spend vast amounts of time playing games, I do not spend vast amounts of time playing games but when I do play I need deep and in depth content for each of those games. How long you spend each time playing is irrelevant to the term "casual" in the sense because you would spend same 5 minute sessions if wish playing BG as would in Farmville if wish due to save feature. The game make take longer overall but that becomes value for money. Complexity should be solved with extra content explaining if you feel it is indeed to complex for the average Joe not simplification to the extend of streamlining and cutting content.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:08 .

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I am casual and I am core, I do not think a lot of people understand what casual actually means in terms of gamers. Casual is does not spend vast amounts of time playing games, I do not spend vast amounts of time playing games but when I do play I need deep and in depth content for each of those games. How long you spend each time playing is irrelevant because you would spend same 5 minute sessions if wish playing BG as would in Farmville if wish due to save feature. The game make take longer overall but that becomes value for money.

And if you had no prior experience with a DnD system, those initial 5 minute sessions wouldn't even be spent actually playing Baldur's Gate, but reading the manual. That's my point; there is a difference between complicated game mechanics and ease of entry. Imagine Baldur's Gate had invented the DnD system, ignoring pen and paper. There would have been no experience for anyone to draw from to even understand what the hell is going on. Other genres don't rely on this problem anywhere near as much. If I buy a game, I don't want to be told that I need to perform some task (reading the manual) irrelevant to the game any more than I want to be told I need to read a book in order to watch a film. That is what I consider the barrier to entry.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:11 .

[Walker White]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Yes and the best way is to put into content inside game additional tools and gameplay that can build up that understanding of mechanics rather than strip them out in order to put less effort developer side in explaining which then leaves a lower depth game overall due to this simplification rather than expansion of tutorials and extra gameplay content to explain the more deep/in depth game.

I don't want this to derail into a "what is an RPG" debate, but the problem was the RPGs had so much legacy cruft in them that this was becoming almost impossible. All these mechanics built up over 35 years; and new mechanics were always added, because we could never pull out what we loved. This system was going to collapse under its own weight. Again, look at the death of the fighter genre.

Was ME2 too steamlined? Sure. But this type of deconstruction has to happen to the genre, before it can get complex again. Heck, even the old school indie guys like SpiderWed software are discovering that they have to do this to survive.

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I am casual and I am core, I do not think a lot of people understand what casual actually means in terms of gamers. Casual is does not spend vast amounts of time playing games, I do not spend vast amounts of time playing games but when I do play I need deep and in depth content for each of those games. How long you spend each time playing is irrelevant because you would spend same 5 minute sessions if wish playing BG as would in Farmville if wish due to save feature. The game make take longer overall but that becomes value for money.

And if you had no prior experience with a DnD system, those initial 5 minute sessions wouldn't even be spent actually playing Baldur's Gate, but reading the manual. That's my point; there is a difference between complicated game mechanics and ease of entry. Imagine Baldur's Gate had invented the DnD system, ignoring pen and paper. There would have been no experience for anyone to draw from to even understand what the hell is going on. Other genres don't rely on this problem anywhere near as much.

Not at all, those systems and mechanics could be explained through content which is actual gameplay. It is not just about reading the manual as you keep saying. Fun and interesting gameplay content could be developed to explain such systems. Now I don't expect people to agree with me but this is how I feel should of been done and my view on the subject.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Siansonea]

So, can I assume this is just another "I hate multiplayer" thread?

[Walker White]

IssacShep wrote ...

That's exactly what Nintendo thought would happen with Wii, and as we now know it didn't really work out. Their Wii Resort gamers didn't convert into hardcore Zelda fans. The truth is, the majority of people can't be converted into core/hardcore gamers.

No, you aren't getting what I am saying.

You cannot easily make casual gamers in one game core in another. Heck, you cannot even make a casual Zelda light and assume that will make them fans of traditional Zelda games.

The point is the casual/core is a spectrum that applies to EACH game. There are casual ME2 players and core ME2 players. The challenge is how to turn the casual ME2 players into core. That is how you must design a game.

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Not at all, those systems and mechanics could be explained through content which is actual gameplay. It is not just about reading the manual as you keep saying. Fun and interesting gameplay content could be developed to explain such systems.

I'd disagree, based on Origins. Hell, the game mechanics there were substantially simpler, and there were still problems there with explaining all the rules. I can only imagine the intro which would be required to explain DnD.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:16 .

[KainrycKarr]

Siansonea II wrote...

So, can I assume this is just another "I hate multiplayer" thread?

Nah, I saw "streamlined" so I think it's a "ME3 is going to be a shooter!" thread.

[Merci357]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I am casual and I am core, I do not think a lot of people understand what casual actually means in terms of gamers. Casual is does not spend vast amounts of time playing games, I do not spend vast amounts of time playing games but when I do play I need deep and in depth content for each of those games.

A limited time frame would indicate a casual gamer, right. But someone who isn't heavily invested in gaming is a casual gamer as well - limited interest is key here. And that's definitely not the case for you, far from it. However, the later with limited interest would probabably never play a classic RPG. A modern, cinematic RPG like ME2 on the other hand might work for some.

[IndomitusRex]

Let's imagine that Bioware is a restaurant, and that the fantastic single player experience we've gotten so far in Mass Effect is steak. Now let's consider multiplayer game experience to be bacon. Enjoying bacon isn't mutually exclusive with enjoying steak. And even if you enjoy steak, but detest bacon, you can always choose to not eat the bacon in Mass Effect 3. You're not losing out on anything because that bacon was free.

Having both together, however, is pretty awesome. And it's better than just steak and bacon; it's filet mignon.

I am a huge ME fan, and I haven't been this excited about a multiplayer experience since Transformers: War for Cybertron. Being able to build up your very own ME character and engage in some wicked co-op missions with your buddies? Sounds pretty damned good to me.

[GMagnum]

IndomitusRex wrote...

Let's imagine that Bioware is a restaurant, and that the fantastic single player experience we've gotten so far in Mass Effect is steak. Now let's consider multiplayer game experience to be bacon. Enjoying bacon isn't mutually exclusive with enjoying steak. And even if you enjoy steak, but detest bacon, you can always choose to not eat the bacon in Mass Effect 3. You're not losing out on anything because that bacon was free.

Having both together, however, is pretty awesome. And it's better than just steak and bacon; it's filet mignon.

I am a huge ME fan, and I haven't been this excited about a multiplayer experience since Transformers: War for Cybertron. Being able to build up your very own ME character and engage in some wicked co-op missions with your buddies? Sounds pretty damned good to me.

bad example cuz who da fk doesnt like bacon? ur not human if u dont like bacon im a salarian and even i like it

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Not at all, those systems and mechanics could be explained through content which is actual gameplay. It is not just about reading the manual as you keep saying. Fun and interesting gameplay content could be developed to explain such systems.

I'd disagree, based on Origins. Hell, the game mechanics there were substantially simpler, and there were still problems there with explaining all the rules. 

You did not have to understand all of the rules and each and every single aspect in order to play and enjoy the game, you understood enough to play and enjoy and for others including self if wished to understand in more depth the option was there because it was within the game. You used BG and PST as example none of those required you to understand all the rules of the entire system to play but if you wished you could learn all the rules. By streamlining and simplification via the removal of those optional depth rules that were not a barrier to entry because you could play without knowing them but had choice to investigate and learn more if wish as they were present, by their removal from streamlining and simplification your gaming and understanding ended there as there was no more option to delve deeper within the game since was removed.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:21 .

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...



You did not have to understand all of the rules and each and every single aspect in order to play and enjoy the game, you understood enough to play and enjoy and for others including self if wished to understand in more depth the option was there because it was within the game.

In the case of Origins, the rules are simpler so of course it's less critical to have an intimate understanding of their details. But examples like spells not having in-depth explanations still made it difficult to understand game mechanics. The game never told me how much damage an actual Fireball might do. How do I decide whether to choose Fireball?

You used BG and PST as example none of those required you to understand all the rules of the entire system to play but if you wished you could learn all the rules. By streamlining and simplification via the removal of those optional depth rules that were not a barrier to entry because you could play without knowing them but had choice to investigate and learn more if wish as they were present, by their removal from streamlining and simplification your gaming and understanding ended there as there was no more option to delve deeper within the game since was removed.

I repeat, the rules were a barrier to entry. Possessing a limited understanding of DnD mechanics easily led to players crippling their characters. You cannot have a "limited understanding" because your character is inherently built on all those base mechanics. Hell, characters could be one shot in original BG from a single crit. And as I recall, the game never told players (for example) that certain attributes stopped being useful past a certain level.

It doesn't matter if you enjoy learning complex rules. The implementation left much to be desired. The point is that someone looking to dabble in a variety of genres, which many gamers do, cannot do so with DnD. It requires that you become intimately familiar with how things work.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...



You did not have to understand all of the rules and each and every single aspect in order to play and enjoy the game, you understood enough to play and enjoy and for others including self if wished to understand in more depth the option was there because it was within the game.

In the case of Origins, the rules are simpler so of course it's less critical to have an intimate understanding of their details. But examples like spells not having in-depth explanations still made it difficult to understand game mechanics. The game never told me how much damage an actual Fireball might do. How do I decide whether to choose Fireball?

You used BG and PST as example none of those required you to understand all the rules of the entire system to play but if you wished you could learn all the rules. By streamlining and simplification via the removal of those optional depth rules that were not a barrier to entry because you could play without knowing them but had choice to investigate and learn more if wish as they were present, by their removal from streamlining and simplification your gaming and understanding ended there as there was no more option to delve deeper within the game since was removed.

I repeat, the rules were a barrier to entry. Possessing a limited understanding of DnD mechanics easily led to players crippling their characters. You cannot have a "limited understanding" because your character is inherently built on all those base mechanics. Hell, characters could be one shot in original BG from a single crit. And as I recall, the game never told players (for example) that certain attributes stopped being useful past a certain level.

It doesn't matter if you enjoy learning complex rules. The implementation left much to be desired. The point is that someone looking to dabble in a variety of genres, which many gamers do, cannot do so with DnD. It requires that you become intimately familiar with how things work.

In over 30 years of gaming I have never once played a single game that requires me to be intimately familiar with how things worked, across and covering all genres and systems. All games only required you to know the most basic information and knowing all the rulesets was not one of them. But being available to learn more and get better was an option, now it is not because developers are removing that option for fear that the audience lack the most basic of attention spans and intelligence. I have not found a single game I could not complete with only the most basic in information which means without reading a single ruleset or book if so wished. If choose to delve deeper into the meanings behind things that was optional but now it is not because like said that option is being removed more and more often.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 03:47 .

[shepskisaac]

Walker White wrote...

The challenge is how to turn the casual ME2 players into core. That is how you must design a game.

Yes, by making the menus & whatnot intuitive and inviting to casuals. But if it's void of any deep customization etc, then they will never get transformed into core gamers since there's no core aspects to the systems. They will remain on the casual front.

[stonbw1]

It's neat. Just last night, my neighbor came over and said she purchased a XBOX 360. I instantly gave her two games that I consider to be some of the best: Bioshock and ME1. She seemed excited over the possibility of playing ME1 and having the same character throughout the series, along with consequences of decisions. So, I guess, I have hopefully added one fan to this supposed dwindling fan base!

[Walker White]

IssacShep wrote...


Yes, by making the menus & whatnot intuitive and inviting to casuals. But if it's void of any deep customization etc, then they will never get transformed into core gamers since there's no core aspects to the systems. They will remain on the casual front.

We aren't really arguing on this point. Except for one detail: the customization cannot be required at the beginnng. The customization has to be optional, and you cannot force the new player to read all the options before playing. In addition, customization must have a gradual slope. It cannot be all or nothing. There must be a gentle learning curve into the customization, and the new player should be allowed to do start doing a little bit a time.

This is the problem with traditional RPG character creators. Heck, I play a lot of RPGs and the first thing I did in Deus Ex: HR was pull up a character builder guide online. Too much choice and no chance to respec.

[bekkilyn]

I just can't think that many people who have never played a Mass Effect game are suddenly going to decide to play the *third* game in a story-based, single-player series just because it has a multiplayer mode where you can go in and shoot things. The FPS crowd is already playing CoD/BF and all of the forum discussions are about which one of the two upcoming ones is going to be better, and which of the two did you pre-order, etc. There is absolutely *NO* mention of Mass Effect in any way, shape, or fashion, just like there is no mention of Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2's tacked-on multiplayer other than people trying to find others to help boost for Xbox achievements in those (multiplayer) dead games. And *those* games are at least still shooters and not RPG's like Mass Effect.

I just don't see a Mass Effect game attracting all these other people unless they were already interested in RPG's, and people into RPG's have already been playing Mass Effect or already have the games somewhere in their game backlog. People already into RPG's aren't really going to care about the multiplayer in general because it's not why they buy RPG games.

SWTOR is a totally different ballgame. It's an MMO. Most of the people it's attracting aren't specifically Bioware fans. They are a combination of Star Wars fans and MMO players. I suspect that a lot of people planning to try out SWTOR probably have no clue who Bioware is, but OMG it's a new MMO to try out! It's a whole different strategy to come out with an MMO than tacking on a multiplayer mode to a single player RPG game. Many people who play MMO's *only* play MMO's because they want to play with hundreds of other players in the same game world, and aren't interested in squad-based mission games, death matches, etc.

I don't think Bioware is going to lose a ton of fans of Mass Effect by tacking on the multiplayer since most want to find out how the single player story ends, but I can't see how they are really going to attract huge numbers of the non-RPG crowd.

I love my Kinect, but it's also not why I play RPG's. Maybe I'll use it with Mass Effect 3 or maybe I won't, but again, Kinect isn't really going to draw a non-RPG gamer into playing an RPG game unless they were already interested without the Kinect.

[Walker White]

bekkilyn wrote ...

I just can't think that many people who have never played a Mass Effect game are suddenly going to decide to play the *third* game in a story-based, single-player series j

People start with sequels all the time; and often they go back and try the originals later. There is a lot of evidence that this happened with ME. After dwindling in sales over time, ME1 got some huge bumps (though some, but not all of these, were sales promotions) after the release of ME2.

[dreman9999]

tez19 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

The ME series is successfully gathering a larger fanbase by streamlining features and appealing to the more casual market.

The DA series is failing in gathering a larger fanbase by completely abandoning the majority of their original fanbase in an attempt to draw in a casual audience that is not interested.

This is true and as a company are they losing more fans than they are gaining as the additional fans buying mass effect may not make up for the fans abandoning them.

Um...I don't think you read what the guy wrote.

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In over 30 years of gaming I have never once played a single game that requires me to be intimately familiar with how things worked across all genres and systems. All games only required you to know the most basic information and knowing all the rulesets was not one of them. But being availible to learn more and get better was an option, now it is not because developers are removing that option for fear that the audience lack the most basic of attention spans and intelligence.I have not found a single game I could not complete with only the most basic in information which means without reading a single ruleset or book if so wished. If choose to delve deeper into the meanings behind things that was optional but now it is not because like said that option is being removed more and more often.

Then you must be very talented if you are able to play effectively without determining things like:

1) How many spells a caster gets at level up.
2) The maximum value at which certain attributes stop being useful.
3) how THACO works.

without that information being contained within the game world. And without a method of rectifying character mistakes.

If this information is not present in the game itself and in a manner in which players can easily access/understand it, how you define "intimate understanding" doesn't matter because a casual player must go out of their way to obtain said information. Again, it's akin to asking that in order to watch a film that I spend a significant investment following that film's background. Someone without any preference to any particular genre or style is unlikely to be willing to make that investment. But by your logic, I can get by in BG with only attribute information available, which really is the essence of what BG tells the player. It was designed for those who had an understanding of DnD.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:05 .