360 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedros]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

      Consensus is irrelevant.

Mayhap, but in the case of DA2  overwhelming ....

Everything, and everyone it sometimes seems,  is relative.     (geese getting fat.. )

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they're going to insist that the player is only in control of one character, and not the whole party, I'd rather have DA look and play like NWN.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're applying prescriptive weight to consensus, effectively employing argumentum ad popularum.  Unfrotunately for you, that people generally believe something to be true does not make it so.

Do you think you get extra points for use of Latin?

In any sort of debate or exchanging of ideas, you need something to back up your opinions. Finding a consensus of the people works quite well in the entertainment field. True, pragmatism of developers can sometimes counter-balance the desire of an angry fanbase, but if there is sufficient consensus, you will see implementation (or removal) of whatever feature is in question.

While I may cite support from, you know, other people, you're applying "Because I said so," as your support.

Unfortunately for you, that you generally believe something to be true does not make it so.

Modifié par Riknas, 23 novembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Phaedros wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

      Consensus is irrelevant.

Mayhap, but in the case of DA2  overwhelming ....

Adding new words to the equation doesn't change it.

[MerinTB]

Riknas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're applying prescriptive weight to consensus, effectively employing argumentum ad popularum.  Unfrotunately for you, that people generally believe something to be true does not make it so.

Do you think you get extra points for use of Latin?

No, he thinks he's using the name for the logical fallacy that he's pointing out.

http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum
http://www.theskepti...lfallacies.aspx

Riknas wrote...
In any sort of debate or exchanging of ideas, you need something to back up your opinions. Finding a consensus of the people works quite well in the entertainment field.

Popular belief just shows that most people believe something - it is NO measure of truth of any other sort.
The consensus of scientists on something carries some weight, as does the consensus of experts in any field... but that still does not equate into truth itself.  That's branching into argument from authority and is a bit of a sticky wicket, but the SGU puts it best - "Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true."

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:00 .

[Riknas]

MerinTB wrote...
Popular belief just shows that most people believe something - it is NO measure of truth of any other sort.
The consensus of scientists on something carries some weight, as does the consensus of experts in any field... but that still does not equate into truth itself.  That's branching into argument from authority and is a bit of a sticky wicket, but the SGU puts it best - "Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true."

That is a logical fallacy olnly when applied to science or a more concrete field of study, (or a very loose field such as religion).

True, there is no way to establish the truth of what it is a better game mechanic. Indeed, in which case we might as well say there is no truth at all. This is the field of entertainment, not one of science. All we have are opinions and what people like. I suppose we will have a harder time arguing who's enjoyment is more valid than the other. Since we can't do that without some very compelling argument, all we can really do is defer back to the populace, because that is what drives the industry.

Barring the populace argument though, all we have are opinions about what is more fun and what should be more fun...And that's more or less the crux of these arguments.

Modifié par Riknas, 23 novembre 2011 - 03:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

While I may cite support from, you know, other people, you're applying "Because I said so," as your support.

I would argue that those are equivalent.

I wasn't even advancing the point on which you are challenging me.  You misread the first comment, and this entire argument has stemmed from that misunderstanding.  Your misunderstanding.

You're being overwhelmed by your own confirmation bias, or you're being intentionally obtuse.  Either way, I'm done here.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's get back on topic, please. If you insist on arguing about arguing, this thread will be closed.

[bEVEsthda]

- Of course BG is voted best game series ever!?
I mean, why the h*** wouldn't it be? It clearly is.

TES? Sorry, but only two titles in that series are really strong, Morrowind and Skyrim. Arena, Daggerfall and Oblivion don't shine quite so brightly. Many other series have the same problem.
CoD? Those games are such crap in so many ways. They are good enough in a few ways, and we know what we'll get. That's why we keep buying them. Not because they are 'great' or anything.

[Realmzmaster]

What about the Ultima series? This series was creative in many ways especially Ultima IV. What about the Wizardry series? One of the games that started it all. How do those series stack up with BG series in gamers minds?

[csfteeeer]

Realmzmaster wrote...

What about the Ultima series? This series was creative in many ways especially Ultima IV. What about the Wizardry series? One of the games that started it all. How do those series stack up with BG series in gamers minds?

Both Series are REALLY old, and their primes was during the 80s and early 90s, so, in general, they are forgotten(Not EVERYBODY has forgotten about them, but they're very few), and the same thing will happen to BG and other older series and more currents will be, to newer gamers, what BG and others like Fallout will be to older gamers.

[Realmzmaster]

csfteeeer wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

What about the Ultima series? This series was creative in many ways especially Ultima IV. What about the Wizardry series? One of the games that started it all. How do those series stack up with BG series in gamers minds?

Both Series are REALLY old, and their primes was during the 80s and early 90s, so, in general, they are forgotten(Not EVERYBODY has forgotten about them, but they're very few), and the same thing will happen to BG and other older series and more currents will be, to newer gamers, what BG and others like Fallout will be to older gamers.

Thanks a lot! Old? I have you know I remember when they were state of the art!
Also the last Wizardry came out in 2001 and the last Ultima in 1999. Baldur's Gate came out in 1998 and throne of Bhaal in 2001. So it is around the same time.

Now if you are talking about the early games in both series I will agree with you.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:58 .

[csfteeeer]

Realmzmaster wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

What about the Ultima series? This series was creative in many ways especially Ultima IV. What about the Wizardry series? One of the games that started it all. How do those series stack up with BG series in gamers minds?

Both Series are REALLY old, and their primes was during the 80s and early 90s, so, in general, they are forgotten(Not EVERYBODY has forgotten about them, but they're very few), and the same thing will happen to BG and other older series and more currents will be, to newer gamers, what BG and others like Fallout will be to older gamers.

Thanks a lot! Old? I have you know I remember when they were state of the art!
Also the last Wizardry came out in 2001 and the last Ultima in 1999. Balur's Gate came out in 1998 and throne of Bhaal in 2001. So it is around the same time.

Now if you are talking about the early games in both series I will agree with you.

yes, i'm talking the Early Games.

Didn't you know?
People Didn't like Pagan or Ascension, and no one cared about Wizardry 8!

Modifié par csfteeeer, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Estelindis]

Stanley Woo wrote...

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

But, then again, sometimes a thing really is that good.  The Lion King was my favourite movie as a child and for many years thereafter.  Then, for a while, I started to imagine that my tastes had somehow become more refined and I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I saw it today.  Accordingly, when it came back to the cinema recently, I went to see it.  I still loved every second of it.  I did not find a single thing wrong with that movie.  

As for Baldur's Gate, I'm actually replaying the first one now (having re-bought it on GOG).  At first, I started to feel that my old memories were overrated.  I couldn't talk to my party members if I clicked on them, for instance, which I hadn't remembered being the case back when I first played BG1 over a decade ago.  After a couple of hours, I installed a fan mod that added conversation trees, random chats, and situational banter for all party members... and I couldn't be enjoying it more.  Mind you, I believe that this is really making it more in-line with the BG2 experience; I recall there being lots of banter and party-member character development throughout BG2, though I'll have to wait until I replay that to see for sure.

Anyway, here's the thing: my experience playing (modded) Baldur's Gate makes me question the importance of full voice acting.  I don't mean for a minute that it's not great.  I love what it has added to Mass Effect and, minus the PC in Origins, Dragon Age.  But, when developing games, there are only ever certain limited resources available to the developer when it comes to time and money.  Writing and voice recording and lip-syncing and animating gestures is, of course, so much more resource-intensive than just writing.  Think of how much more dialogue and description could be put into the game if it was only written.  Now, I totally understand that, for a lot of game players and critics, Bioware has already overloaded their games with dialogue.  (I believe Yahtzee complained about the amount of dialogue in Mass Effect, which, to my mind, was hardly Bioware's most dialogue-intensive game.)  But, by happy coincidence, this large majority of the fandom has the large majority of money that can fund games with fewer lines that have animation and voice acting.  Maybe there's also a place for a game for the minority of fans?  Said fans would have less money to spend on it, but it would also cost less to develop.  Of course, there are other money-sinks like modern graphics, but a stylised approach can allow a game to look charming or scary (or what-have-you) in a non-photo-realistic manner that costs less and still looks great.

I guess I'd love to see Bioware devoting a small team to producing a game that was more about the writing than anything else and was cheap to produce.  The company is already so diversified, with Dragon Age Legends, multi-player added to ME3, and its highly-anticipated entry into the world of MMOs, that I don't see anything wrong with diversifying one step further.  As it stands, Bioware has already given us games that we can mod to our heart's content, so we can use those tools to enjoy each other's writing via low-resource games.  All the same, I'd love to see Bioware writers producing work like that again.  Perhaps one could even contemplate work that goes further on the writing front: something like an interactive novel with gaming elements.  

Modifié par Estelindis, 24 novembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Realmzmaster]

@Estelindis,

There is a game like what you described. It is called Planescape Torment (PST). It was done by Black Isles Studios (Chris Avellone was the lead designer currently working at Obsidan Entertainment) using the Infinity Engine. The same one used to create BG. The game is considered a cult classic. It was critically acclaimed, but financially barely broke even. You can find it at GOG.

Games like you are describing are more in the realm of interactive fiction. Companies like Infocom, level 9, Adventure International and Sierra-online produce many games of that type.

If you are looking for Interactive fiction (IF) you can find it here: http://www.ifarchive.org/

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 novembre 2011 - 04:47 .

[Estelindis]

Realmzmaster, I have played it. Thank you, though. I'll check out that link.

[AlexXIV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Estelindis,

There is a game like what you described. It is called Planescape Torment (PST). It was done by Black Isles Studios (Chris Avellone was the lead designer currently working at Obsidan Entertainment) using the Infinity Engine. The same one used to create BG. The game is considered a cult classic. It was critically acclaimed, but financially barely broke even. You can find it at GOG.

Games like you are describing are more in the realm of interactive fiction. Companies like Infocom, level 9, Adventure International and Sierra-online produce many games of that type.

If you are looking for Interactive fiction (IF) you can find it here: http://www.ifarchive.org/

That's the problem. Planescape was superiour to Baldur, but people just didn't get it. I don't know why devs would vote on the 'best RPG' and base it on financial success. Do we need devs to tell us which game sold better? I don't think so.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Estelindis wrote...

But, then again, sometimes a thing really is that good.  The Lion King was my favourite movie as a child and for many years thereafter.  Then, for a while, I started to imagine that my tastes had somehow become more refined and I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I saw it today.  Accordingly, when it came back to the cinema recently, I went to see it.  I still loved every second of it.  I did not find a single thing wrong with that movie.  

I saw it a few days ago, and damn, this movie is just good. Although the experience has changed a bit over the years, and I found larger enjoyment in different aspects of the movie than back when I was a kid. All in all it has become an even more powerful experience for me today, as I'm pretty sure I did not cry when I first watched it. And boy, did I cry this time. And not just during the gorge scene, which for me has always been one of the most emotionally overwhelming scenes in any movie. I just need to listen to the awesome music to get teary-eyed...  
Good thing the cinema was pretty empty, or it might have been slightly embarassing.

Anyways, sorry for being off-topic. Long live the King!

[Realmzmaster]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

But, then again, sometimes a thing really is that good.  The Lion King was my favourite movie as a child and for many years thereafter.  Then, for a while, I started to imagine that my tastes had somehow become more refined and I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I saw it today.  Accordingly, when it came back to the cinema recently, I went to see it.  I still loved every second of it.  I did not find a single thing wrong with that movie.  

I saw it a few days ago, and damn, this movie is just good. Although the experience has changed a bit over the years, and I found larger enjoyment in different aspects of the movie than back when I was a kid. All in all it has become an even more powerful experience for me today, as I'm pretty sure I did not cry when I first watched it. And boy, did I cry this time. And not just during the gorge scene, which for me has always been one of the most emotionally overwhelming scenes in any movie. I just need to listen to the awesome music to get teary-eyed...  
Good thing the cinema was pretty empty, or it might have been slightly embarassing.

Anyways, sorry for being off-topic. Long live the King!

Yes, Disney has made many enduring classics. I think the Lion King is an excellent moviealong with Beauty and Beast, Lady and the Tramp, Mulan and The Princess and the Frog.

[Realmzmaster]

AlexXIV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Estelindis,

There is a game like what you described. It is called Planescape Torment (PST). It was done by Black Isles Studios (Chris Avellone was the lead designer currently working at Obsidan Entertainment) using the Infinity Engine. The same one used to create BG. The game is considered a cult classic. It was critically acclaimed, but financially barely broke even. You can find it at GOG.

Games like you are describing are more in the realm of interactive fiction. Companies like Infocom, level 9, Adventure International and Sierra-online produce many games of that type.

If you are looking for Interactive fiction (IF) you can find it here: http://www.ifarchive.org/

That's the problem. Planescape was superiour to Baldur, but people just didn't get it. I don't know why devs would vote on the 'best RPG' and base it on financial success. Do we need devs to tell us which game sold better? I don't think so.

Unfortunately superior does not always mean well-recived. A lot more gamers were in to the Forgotten Realms than Planescape. Also Planescape might be considered a more  thinking cRPG where the emphasis was not on combat.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Estelindis wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

But, then again, sometimes a thing really is that good.  

The point was that nostalgia is not an accurate tool, just like personal opinion when trying to hit a target demographic is not. There are going to be just as many people who just remember liking The Thing than who actually still play it, just like there are those that like Feature X and those that don't.

That's what he was getting at. It has nothing to do with current personal taste.

[Estelindis]

Well, I thought the point was that people won't necessarily like today what they liked ten years ago. I agree; I just think that people won't necessarily *not* like them either. Accordingly, nostalgia is really beside the point and, really, isn't current taste quite important, given that an accurate gauge of what it is should help a company to sell games? I bear in mind as well that people may like some things they don't realise they like, but a list of unknowns is going to be huge and even more expensive to base games on. ;-)

[bEVEsthda]

Estelindis wrote...

Well, I thought the point was that people won't necessarily like today what they liked ten years ago. I agree; I just think that people won't necessarily *not* like them either. Accordingly, nostalgia is really beside the point and, really, isn't current taste quite important, given that an accurate gauge of what it is should help a company to sell games? I bear in mind as well that people may like some things they don't realise they like, but a list of unknowns is going to be huge and even more expensive to base games on. ;-)

I think you're completely right.
Of course people's taste changes through life. That's completely normal and may affect many things, food, drink, activities, movies, novels, games. And it works both ways. Some things you liked, you stop liking. Some things you didn't like, you start loving.

But I would say it's, by very far, much more common that you still like a thing that you used to like, and still don't like things that you didn't like.
Things that are specifically aimed at children is a special case and I'm not discussing that.

In my own personal case, I still like most games that I used to like. I know that because I can, and do, play some of them at times. And what is very frustrating is that there are good reasons for liking them. Gameplay has generally not become better today. The definition of the playfield has become more detailed, but not the adventure you're having in it. Take BG for instance. You had to plan ahead and take a strategic responsibility for your party and adventure. No auto health, no auto mana, no auto restoration, which so conveniently reset everything for each fight. Perma death requiring searching costly resurrection. Vancian casting and +100 spells to pick from. There were so many spells and scrolls in BG that you never used more than a small subset of them. Usually, you eventually stumbled upon a situation you could not cope with, without reading up on spells in the manual, finding one that seemed like it might work, and setting off to find a scroll to purchase. And then we had day/night cycle, and fatigue that required resting. And you had to make do with the companions you recruited. No cherry picking for each battle. Missiles and health potions were limited, requiring you to ration and make do. All of it combined to make the world so much more living, the challenge more holistic and engaging.

Personally, I liked and still like all this. And I would have wanted that kind of game definition to expand, evolve. It never did.
I do get that kids who grew up with Nintendo platform games have little patience with those complications, since they don't give immediate gratification or make them feel like they're awesome. That's fine by me. I never liked Mario or any of those games. The first "platformer" I  truly liked was 'Flashback', and that is not exactly a typical platform game.

I actually despised most platformers. Which makes it so much more painful now, that many games these days seem to degenerate into the  old console platformer format of gameplay.

;begin DA2 rant 
Take DA2 for instance. What is there? Just set piece, always fixed and balanced combat, win, pick up the loot and advance, advance until you meet a "Boss", tiresomely whittle down the Boss, and so on. That is ALL gameplay there is! There is nothing else! Everything else is just decoration, for show! In BG the dialogue was used as switching stations, a place where you chose, wittingly or not, directions in the game. In DA2, it's only for the amusement of that poor FF- crowd who thinks RPG's are about being spoonfed a story. "Oh it's so fun to hear the lines, I was so surprised"

And I kinda feel a bit insulted every time someone pretends this devolution of gameplay represents "innovation" or "moving forward". I mean what's wrong with those people? What is "forward"? What is the "innovation"? "Streamlining" is totally the wrong word. Dumbing down is really what it is about. And the gameplay is looking backwards, to the stone age of videogaming. Nothing "forward" about it.

The only thing that has not gotten worse, the only thing improving, is the definition of the game presentation, like the graphics, animations, sound. The only thing! And to add insult, that fact is not used to improve the art, oh no, instead we're suddenly fed more retarded, unrealistic, juvenile nonsens in that department too.
;end DA2 rant

There are good games made today. But old games that are still as good or better than most stuff today comes thirteen a dozen. Aside from mentioned old RPGs we also have stuff like Civ, Sim City, Railroad Tycoon (Amiga version), Silent Service, Red Storm, Powermonger, Lord of the Realm, Pirates (Amiga version), Lemmings, Cannon Fodder, Tomb Raider,..  The list just goes on and on.
Of course, people who thinks the "poor" graphics make them "unplayable", will never discover that. There is often also the problem of not having a platform that can still run the game. But with the amount of available games today, they don't really have to either. I just wish there was more real innovation. Cut scene movies and speaking PC isn't, really.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:08 .

[xCirdanx]

bEVEsthda wrote...
I think you're completely right....

i really like you ^.^ and completely agree with you. Except one thing: the old console stuff. Some of the first console games were pretty damn hard, unlike most stuff today. Hell the first Mario titels could also be pretty frustrating [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png[/smilie]

[bEVEsthda]

xCirdanx wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
I think you're completely right....

i really like you ^.^ and completely agree with you. Except one thing: the old console stuff. Some of the first console games were pretty damn hard, unlike most stuff today. Hell the first Mario titels could also be pretty frustrating ../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png

??   Hmm, I meant that the whole logistics around consoles is "easy". (in that other post in the thread about UIs) Just register the online service once, drop in the game and play. I didn't mean to say that console games are easy. And I don't think I said console games are easy in this thread either? But a platformer is pretty straight forward, either it's hard or not.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 novembre 2011 - 10:35 .