597 réponses à ce sujet

[onelifecrisis]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Oh good, another "casual gamer" definition. Thanks. I'll add it to the pile.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Chris Priestly wrote...

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

ALL GLORY TO THE B IOWARE!!!

[Il Divo]

Novate wrote...


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.

Imo, casual gamer is an indicator meant to define both time and effort which a gamer may expend. The more effort required merely to understand and play the game, the less likely I am going to bother. Even if we accept that time is the more prominent factor; that's time (which I have little of) spent reading a manual and not playing a game.

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. 

It's not necessarily more an excuse than it is for someone who doesn't want to read a book to enjoy a movie; I should be able to derive a total experience from the featured content alone. The game should explain the rules to me, not the manual in ideal circumstances.

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.

An item can work the exact same way. I might not be willing to purchase an item, precisely because it must be put together; I might find one pre-assembled. Games are similar in this sense. If Game A requires significant dedication merely to understand the rule base, I'm less likely to give it an opportunity than Game B, which I can jump into instantly.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:51 .

[Dragoonlordz]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Oh good, another "casual gamer" definition. Thanks. I'll add it to the pile.

Do so, I consider myself a casual gamer and that is indeed what it means to me.

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Really? Can you please point to me why your understanding is superior? I'd really like to see the official rule book.
Put another way, different understanding does not imply your understanding is better.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 octobre 2011 - 04:49 .

[Thompson family]

onelifecrisis wrote...

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

Even by that logic, the demand for single-player RPG's is clearly becoming a small one. I don't say that to be spiteful, but that's the way the market is going — whatever our preferences are.

The trouble with single-player RPG is that is really doesn't matter how well or how long you play it. What matters is whether you buy a single-player game. The bottom line financially is that it does not make a business difference whether you never play the game at all as long as you buy it.

More casual players will buy ME3 just to play it online with a friend of theirs than play the whole adventure.

[Walker White]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

As I said earlier, game studios are rapidly learning that this definition is wrong, or at best, meaningless.

[King Minos]

There will be people who will buy Mass Effect 3 just for multiplayer and not even touch the campaign.

[Dragoonlordz]

Walker White wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

As I said earlier, game studios are rapidly learning that this definition is wrong, or at best, meaningless.

The way I see it is casual gamer (aka games and gaming) of which class myself is one who does not invest a large amount of time gaming, casual player (aka playing and play) which is not me and to me is relating to difficulty. I know my logic probably is unique but thats how I have always viewed it. If they use jargon which does not fit how I view it then it is indeed wrong to label gamer relating to difficulty instead of time. Again it becomes a one size fits all that developers are clinging too which is simply bad and wrong imho and leading to a decline in quality and more importantly choice. Simply diluting all genres and products into a sloppy mesh of random features while hiding behind industry buzz words and phrases just to hit as large as possible audience (broaden the audience as another buzz phrase they use now) with big generic paintbrush where all genres become diluted mess with no direction and limited customer choice that lacks clear defined difference between each.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 octobre 2011 - 05:17 .

[Jorina Leto]

Ecto-Plasmic Effect wrote...
To me, the ones that are leaving because of an optional feature aren't the true fans.

So anyone who is not a blind fanboi is not a fan?
Sure...

[shepskisaac]

King Minos wrote...

There will be people who will buy Mass Effect 3 just for multiplayer and not even touch the campaign.

Few. This is not COD or Diablo, MP is not the main component & draw of the franchise. Just like people will still buy Uncharted 3 primarly for SP story, their favourite characters Drake, Chloe etc.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 13 octobre 2011 - 05:07 .

[bekkilyn]

King Minos wrote...

There will be people who will buy Mass Effect 3 just for multiplayer and not even touch the campaign.

Who? Who are all these people? When people ask me what I did over the weekend and I say, "Oh I played Mass Effect," the reaction is usually, "Mass what? What's that?" If they are one of the *very* few people who even own a console (PC gaming is practically unheard of, BTW, when most just use computers for email, Facebook, and MS Office) and play *any* kind of game, their eyes glaze over when they find out it's an RPG, or they simply say something like, "Oh I don't have time to play those kinds of games." They then go back to playing CoD or Guitar Hero or their Facebook games and that's that. The idea that hordes of people are going to run out in droves to play ME3 multiplayer when they have *never* before been interested in an RPG is laughable at best. It won't even matter whether or not the multiplayer is good. (People talk up and down about how wonderful the multiplayer is in AC: Brotherhood, but it supposedly takes forever just to get into a game. Guess there's no hordes of players there either. Wonder how long Ubisoft will keep it running once Revelations comes out.) ME is simply a non-entity outside of the RPG gaming world.

[bekkilyn]

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.

And I'd bet the vast  majority of the segment who bought ME2 without ME1 were already RPG gamers and were already planning to get to the ME games one day. ME2 just gave them the push they needed to get started. I also very much doubt there were droves of them. I also very highly doubt they were composed of all the casual Facebook/Ipad app gamers and CoD/BF crowd that ME3 is supposedly trying to attract.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Anyone who frenzies themselves into a rage because not every feature in a game is put in ESPECIALLY for them has taken consumer entitlement to new levels and is likely not worth marketing to, which is why the shift is here. People like that are not the core, they are the fringe.

[WoolyJoe]

I don't think they've lost any fans, just a few idiots

[bigheadzach]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Anyone who frenzies themselves into a rage because not every feature in a game is put in ESPECIALLY for them has taken consumer entitlement to new levels and is likely not worth marketing to, which is why the shift is here. People like that are not the core, they are the fringe.

And as any media network will tell you, fringe sells advertising time

[ramdog7]

Second dumbest thread on BSN

[DarkDragon777]

Nope, they've gained new fans that are going to stop caring about their games in a few years and lost a lot of old fans.

[sevach]

Bioware is trying to leave it's niche and expanding, in a perfect scenario they capture new fans and retain their old rpg loving fanbase. On a not so perfect scenario they ****** off their long time fans and get ditched for the next "coolest game" by their new fanbase.

It is necessary to take risks if you want to get bigger.
Time will tell if it's a good long term move.

Personally after ME3 (that one is safe for me) i'm in the wait and see camp.

[DadeLeviathan]

I've been a fan of Bioware since Shattered Steel. I will continue being a fan. The only 'fans,' that they are losing are the ones raging and screaming that, "Bioware is doing something different than I'm used to, thus they are ignoring their true fans."

Sure, Bioware does't have a 100% track record with good design decisions, but no company does. Even Baldur's Gate 2 had some bad design choices, and that game is still arguably the best game -- design wise -- that Bioware has done to date.

[shepskisaac]

LiveLoveThaneKrios wrote...

I dont think they are loosing fans.
Like DadeLeviathan said, the only fans they are loosing are the ones who don't like the idea of Co-Op.

They won't lose fans with ME3 (neither they did with ME2) but they DID lose fans with DA2, it's simply a fact.

[Newnation]

WoolyJoe wrote...

I don't think they've lost any fans, just a few idiots

That sounds about right.

[N7 Spectre525]

King Minos wrote...

There will be people who will buy Mass Effect 3 just for multiplayer and not even touch the campaign.

You must think this is Gears 3 or something. Mass Effect is not known for multiplayer, and most of the people I know who play shooters have zero interest because of all the "talky parts" AND" Aliens". I've tried time and time again to get the few friends I have who game to try Mass Effect with no luck what so ever.
You see in Gears or COD or Army of 2 you are playing as a human with human partners/companions, where as in ME1 or2 you team consists of Blue Aliens, Giant frogs, and a dinosaur...alot of close minded people cant get in to that alien stuff. Sad but true.