597 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

IsaacShep wrote...

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.

The depth in the game is in the character interaction,development, universe and story. That tripled from ME1.
Also, their is the detail of how you develop your powers for your Shepard. Their is more then one way to build an adept and so on.

[shepskisaac]

Walker White wrote...

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.

I agree, but the system should be flexible enough to allow deep customization from the beginning or relatively early for experienced player AND also for casuals who already beat the game and learnt the mechanics and no longer need first-time guiding.

[matt-bassist]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Oh, and we are not losing fans. We've been steadily increasing our community for years now.

and DOWN comes the hammer! KABOOOOOM 

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

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 and determine 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.  

But not every rpg has to have it. I understand  all those thing, but I also understand an rpg does not need to have the rules of D&D to be an rpg.

[Il Divo]

Walker White wrote...

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.

And HR was great fun, too. The problem literally comes when a game becomes overwhelming for someone who's never touched it before. The DA:O Mage being a perfect example. Four schools of magic, times four spell lines, times four spells per line meant that a player could potentially be looking at 64 different spells, even if only the first 16 were open to them. And in this case, the tooltip doesn't even tell them the precise stats of each spell.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:12 .

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...


But not every rpg has to have it. I understand  all those thing, but I also understand an rpg does not need to have the rules of D&D to be an rpg.

Right, but I'm not arguing that it does need to feature DnD, not even close. I'm arguing what the flaws of DnD are, and especially BG, as it might pertain to a casual gamer. If we assume that I have no predisposition to any genre, we're still left in a problematic scenario. Game A can teach me everything I need to know on its own, Game B require supplemental material. What's easier to deal with for a casual? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:10 .

[Walker White]

IssacShep wrote...

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

I am trying to pay attention to the current talk I am in and missed this.

There are a lot of arguments for why The rhythm genre failed, but this is not one I have ever heard from anyone who has looked at the data. Yes, lack of innovation over time is one, but that is definitely not the same thing as appealing to casuals. I can innovate and still only pull in casuals.

Another belief is that the way DLC was handled caused a massive fragmentation in the community. You no longer had the shared experiences that drove the genre in the first people, as everyonejust went off and played their own private music.

[Merci357]

Walker White wrote...

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.

It's not only to get new customers, it's also to keep people playing. The longer a game is installed/played, the more likely people (beyond core fans) will get related DLC.
That said, beyond attracting new people, and keeping people attached to their game longer - some genuinely like a ME MP feature. With this feature they are also catering to at least a section of existing fans.

[AbsoluteApril]

Ieldra2 wrote...
*ME2 I replayed on Insanity because I wanted to know if a higher difficulty changed the overall experience. And it did, and it was quite satisfying.
*DA2 I replay on Casual because all I think when faced with combat is that I want it to be over.

THIS x100
***
I'm a fan of JRPGs and sandbox games (bethesda), when my neighbor found out, he brought over ME1 and simply said 'play this, you will like it'. I was hooked - amazing story, characters and choices that change gameplay? yes please!

Got ME1, then ME2 (prefer ME1). Figured since those were so great their other RPGs must be good as well. Picked up DA:O which blew me away! epic RPG, love it! Read tons of bad reviews of DA2 but decided to go ahead and give it a shot, I like it, it's no DA:O, but still a fun game.

Already preordered ME3,was not super excited about the MP as I felt it should have waited until Shepards story was over; however I'll give it a shot since it sound like an interesting spin on things. Mainly I want to complete (all of my) Shepard's story. Very excited about the Kinect aspect, glad to see it being utilized in 'core' games. Plan to pre-order DA3 (please no MP) - and hopefully it won't be coming out until 2013, 2014, heck even 2015 is fine, however long it takes to make it spectacular. The gained a fangirl in me.

wow that was longer than I planned...

Modifié par AbsoluteApril, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:21 .

[Walker White]

Il Divo wrote..

And HR was great fun, too. The problem literally comes when a game becomes overwhelming for someone who's never touched it before

I often use my wife as a yardstick for this type of stuff. My wife is a core Assassins Creed player. She is at the level of some of the Hidden Blade players. But she won't touch RPGs because she wants to spend more time in the game, and hates "playing in menus" more than playing the game. Some menus are fine; she plays ME2. But even though she likes the story, the amount of time futzing in menus turned her off of DE:HR.

[onelifecrisis]

Yes, it's true.

I mean no, it's not true.

Dammit I'm no good at this crystal ball crap.

[Il Divo]

Walker White wrote...

Il Divo wrote..

And HR was great fun, too. The problem literally comes when a game becomes overwhelming for someone who's never touched it before

I often use my wife as a yardstick for this type of stuff. My wife is a core Assassins Creed player. She is at the level of some of the Hidden Blade players. But she won't touch RPGs because she wants to spend more time in the game, and hates "playing in menus" more than playing the game. Some menus are fine; she plays ME2. But even though she likes the story, the amount of time futzing in menus turned her off of DE:HR.

If you or she have played it, how do you feel about KotOR with respect to accessibility? I consider it my favorite Bioware game but looking back, I played it before I had any understanding of DnD, which was problematic at first. It's easy to see it as a great game, but it's tough to determine how a casual player might handle it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:28 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

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.  

I did indeed complete BG (and far more deeper DnD titles) without even reading the manual or knowing anything about the stuff you mentioned back then, it was no more difficult for me to complete than Mario or Pacman; sometimes you die in the game but then go back and do it again if you remove the chance of death or failure in a game then it ceases to be a game and becomes an interactive movie and one without consequences. Over time upon multiple playthrougths I decided to delve deeper into the mechanics which was only possible because they were there to do so if chose. It had nothing that stopped me playing or enjoying even without knowing all the things mentioned. But the problem with streamlining and simplification is those features and mechanics were/are lowered in quantity and quality and had zero effect on whether I could complete or reach the end, It did however effect my enjoyment in that all the things I could of learned and got deeper into if "chose" to do so were/are more and more often no longer there these days.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:33 .

[Walker White]

Il Divo wrote...

If you or she have played it, how do you feel about KotOR with respect to accessibility? I consider it my favorite Bioware game but looking back, I played it before I had any understanding of DnD, which was problematic at first.

I have played RPGs since 1977, so I am not a proper user test. But that game definitely has way too much in the character creation for her. Another issue, is that she likes customizing the character with tangible items (clothes,weapons,powers) and not abstract statistics. Those elements (even items) can have statistics attached to them, but it has to have a tangible element.

[Dragoonlordz]

Walker White wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

If you or she have played it, how do you feel about KotOR with respect to accessibility? I consider it my favorite Bioware game but looking back, I played it before I had any understanding of DnD, which was problematic at first.

I have played RPGs since 1977, so I am not a proper user test. But that game definitely has way too much in the character creation for her. Another issue, is that she likes customizing the character with tangible items (clothes,weapons,powers) and not abstract statistics. Those elements (even items) can have statistics attached to them, but it has to have a tangible element.

But all those things come down to preference, does or does not like menus does and does not like changing clothes. If the gaming industry really is pandering to preferences it is screwed because there is no way of knowing unless a industry wide poll is done every year to obtain whether the majority like menus or the majority like changing clothes. For every single person who has a preference there is another person whos preference is the opposite.

Unfortuantly the industry is forcing their view of what is what people want instead of finding out. When each title that comes out has less features, less choice and all become a generic single genre with "elements" for now taken from others sooner or later those elements themselves will get streamlined and will become one mismitch mash up of no actual defining direction. A one size fits all that people are forced to buy or stop gaming altogether because of the decline in customers selection offered to them.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:40 .

[dreman9999]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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.  

I did indeed complete BG without even reading the manual or knowing anything about the stuff you mentioned back then, it was no more difficult for me to complete than Mario or Pacman. Over time upon multiple playthrougths I decided to delve deeper into the mechanics which was only possible because they were there to do so if chose. It had nothing that stopped me playing or enjoying even without knowing all the things mentioned. But the problem with streamlining and simplification is those features and mechanics were/are lowered in quantity and quality and had zero effect on whether I could complete or reach the end, It did however effect my enjoyment in that all the things I could of learned and got deeper into if "chose" to do so were/are more and more often no longer there these days.

....
OK. That is a lie. I know for a fact you have to know what you are doing and how the rules of the game work to play it on normal.
How would  you know how to defeat eneimes that are immune to weapons or weapon type if you don't know the rules? Or keep people alive? Or be albe to not perminetly lose them? Or deal with traps? Or even protect your mage?

BG1 and 2 is way more complex then pac man. If you think that it is then I don't think we played the same game.

[Thompson family]

Yes, because hard-core RPG is a clearly and rapidly declining niche market.

Want proof? OK. How many hard-core single-player RPG's are left?

Never confuse noise with numbers, as I've said before.

Modifié par Thompson family, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:39 .

[Novate]

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. 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.

But reading the Manual is suppose to help you ease into the game world, I think most people forget that Casual doesn't mean Dumb or Stupid. It just means that for other you may have 5 hours to play this game, but for me i only have 2 hours.

Of course there are those that just wanted something they can pick up and play immediately and learn as they go, but that is just an excuse. Its not that you didn't want to learn how to play, or that the game was too hard. its just the nature of some people who also does not ask for directions even when they are lost.
Just ask yourself, when you buy a item that you need to assemble, do you read the instructions first or do you just learn as you go and found extra screws and parts after you are done. And then tell yourself that thats what its suppose to look like.

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I did indeed complete BG (and far more deeper DnD titles) without even reading the manual or knowing anything about the stuff you mentioned back then, it was no more difficult for me to complete than Mario or Pacman; sometimes you die in the game but then go back and do it again if you remove the chance of death or failure in a game then it ceases to be a game and becomes an interactive movie and one without consequences. Over time upon multiple playthrougths I decided to delve deeper into the mechanics which was only possible because they were there to do so if chose. It had nothing that stopped me playing or enjoying even without knowing all the things mentioned. But the problem with streamlining and simplification is those features and mechanics were/are lowered in quantity and quality and had zero effect on whether I could complete or reach the end, It did however effect my enjoyment in that all the things I could of learned and got deeper into if "chose" to do so were/are more and more often no longer there these days.

If you are comparing the accessibility of Mario to Baldur's Gate, then I'm going to take a shot and say that we have very different understandings of the casual gamer.

[Walker White]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

If the gaming industry really is pandering to preferences it is screwed because there is no way of knowing unless a industry wide poll is done every year to obtain whether the majority like menus or the majority like changing clothes

There is a large market that think like my wife. This is exactly why the ME3 designers have said that they want to make leveling feel you are making concrete, tangible jumps when you go up in level.

This is exactly what data analytics is for, and why data analytics are rapidly moving outside of the financial office, and into the hands of the game designers. BioWare is very, very analytic driven. That is why they are moving in the direction that they are. Yes, this means thatthe vocal core fan have less of a voice, but it is because they are not the only voice being heard.

But analytics is not fullproof if you do not know what you are looking for. The problem with DA2 I believe is that the team for that game looked at ME and its successes to interpret its data, rather than understanding the data in the unique context for the fans for that series.

[Dragoonlordz]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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.  

I did indeed complete BG without even reading the manual or knowing anything about the stuff you mentioned back then, it was no more difficult for me to complete than Mario or Pacman. Over time upon multiple playthrougths I decided to delve deeper into the mechanics which was only possible because they were there to do so if chose. It had nothing that stopped me playing or enjoying even without knowing all the things mentioned. But the problem with streamlining and simplification is those features and mechanics were/are lowered in quantity and quality and had zero effect on whether I could complete or reach the end, It did however effect my enjoyment in that all the things I could of learned and got deeper into if "chose" to do so were/are more and more often no longer there these days.

....
OK. That is a lie. I know for a fact you have to know what you are doing and how the rules of the game work to play it on normal.
How would  you know how to defeat eneimes that are immune to weapons or weapon type if you don't know the rules? Or keep people alive? Or be albe to not perminetly lose them? Or deal with traps? Or even protect your mage?

BG1 and 2 is way more complex then pac man. If you think that it is then I don't think we played the same game.

Nonsense, if a weapon does not work you try another weapon, if a spell does not work you try another spell, if a player dies he or she dies upon second or third playthrough if do something different you find out they can be saved; you do NOT need to know which weapon and which spell. It is called trial and error and to call me a liar because you simply do not understand the difference is immature and wrong. There was nothing more complex regarding [difficulty] between Pacman and BG or Tomb Raider for me and I did indeed complete BG many times a long time ago, in fact I actually found Pacman harder tbh.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:47 .

[DiscoDarth]

loosing fans..."laughtingb***es.jpg". Bioware ftw!

[onelifecrisis]

Thompson family wrote...

Yes, because hard-core RPG is a clearly and rapidly declining niche market.

Want proof? OK. How many hard-core single-player RPG's are left?

Never confuse noise with numbers, as I've said before.

Foxes and rabits.

It doesn't matter which market is bigger. What matters is which market has the greatest ratio of supply to demand.


Edit: On second thought, they both matter.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:46 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I did indeed complete BG (and far more deeper DnD titles) without even reading the manual or knowing anything about the stuff you mentioned back then, it was no more difficult for me to complete than Mario or Pacman; sometimes you die in the game but then go back and do it again if you remove the chance of death or failure in a game then it ceases to be a game and becomes an interactive movie and one without consequences. Over time upon multiple playthrougths I decided to delve deeper into the mechanics which was only possible because they were there to do so if chose. It had nothing that stopped me playing or enjoying even without knowing all the things mentioned. But the problem with streamlining and simplification is those features and mechanics were/are lowered in quantity and quality and had zero effect on whether I could complete or reach the end, It did however effect my enjoyment in that all the things I could of learned and got deeper into if "chose" to do so were/are more and more often no longer there these days.

If you are comparing the accessibility of Mario to Baldur's Gate, then I'm going to take a shot and say that we have very different understandings of the casual gamer.

Like I said earlier a lot of people like yourself do not actually understand that casual gamer means one who does not invest a vast amount of time playing games imho.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:47 .