623 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Just now seeing this after going back about ten or so pages, so I wanted to address this. Even if it was originally off-topic.

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I think it's not parents as much as it's media, TBH.

I think it's both. I think the media influences the parents too much and as a result the parents buy into the misconceptions and falsehoods without even listening to anything that isn't the media. Or parents that don't watch the media still believe it themselves for whatever reason.

Speaking from personal experience, my mom used things the media said about video games -- as well as crimes committed and blamed on video games -- as reasons why kids shouldn't play video games.

I showed her medical reports written by doctors on how video games are beneficial to the growth of a child's brain because of the complex nature of most games (puzzles, logic, etc.). There was even a 2009 study that confirmed that violent video games have no bearing on real-world aggressive behavior

She wouldn't listen.

That said, video games shouldn't find their way into the hands of those more prone to violent acts, but there isn't really a way for that to be prevented without infringing on peoples' rights. So all that remains is to blame the person and not the game, as plenty of people who have played violent games don't go off into the world mixing fantasy with reality and end up killing dozens of people with an Uzi for points.

I think you'll very rarely find the kind of parents who take a sufficient interest to be concerned... being OK with "let's show the kids every kind of debauchery, violence and sexual depravity there is - but no nipples!! Save us from the nipples!". That's in the US or out of it.

U.S definitely. Sadly, it's one of the reasons I dislike the U.S. these days

Of course if they do, it's not my place to comment on other families' values, that would be presumptuous and arrogant. What parents want their kids to see/not see is their own family's business, it's really up to them to decide what's ridiculous and what isn't for their family, not me. Well, not us.

I think it's perfectly fine for a parent to not want their child to see sexual themes at a young age in video games, but they should also take an active role in ensuring their kids don't see those things.

That said, sexuality is prevalent across so many forms of media that it can't be written off. In almost any TV show, any movie, and other forms of media sexual themes are present. Even in Disney movies sexual themes/sexuality can be seen if you think about it, though in watered down forms.

I would think the best thing is to just teach your kid about it around a certain age.

But then this brings up the problem of the kids possibly engaging in those acts at a young age, like in the case with the Oakland 2nd graders.

Ultimately, the parents are held responsible for what their children see, but they shouldn't try and blame the video game companies. And once a child reaches a certain age -- 13 at the latest, but even then that seems like overreacting imo -- they will need to know about and be allowed to view things dealing with sex and sexuality.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 janvier 2012 - 07:39 .

[dragonflight288]

I happen to have an aunt who blames many of societies problems on video games. Okay she's a great aunt in her sixties, but she is not the kind of person who'll listen to any evidence or theory that doesn't support her own preconceptions. I explained how most games these days are more engaging than some movies, can very well be seen like a movie (Mass Effect-Shepard makes great speeches,) there is evidence that supports development because of puzzles and some games make you think to move on.

But she won't acknowledge that violence in real life is unconnected to video games. I mean it's not like the 1800's didn't have violent crimes...wait, Jack the Ripper existed? So he's not just a fictional character in a Sherlock Holmes xbox game? Okay so there weren't any serial killers in the 40's like L.A. Noire indicates....wait? Those murder cases are based on a serial killer who actually existed?

Holy smokes! You mean video games weren't inspiring deadly and violent crimes back then? There weren't any so what was the excuse then?

Whatever.

The back of games do have warning labels on them, and every M rated game requires (in the U.S.-I can't speak for other countries) a photo identity with proof of being at least 17 years old to even purchase. Strong language, sexual themes, minor language, the warnings are right there on the game case for the parents to look at before buying them for the kids.

[Mike_Neel]

People will always find something to blame society's problems on. It's easier to have something tangible that you can point at and say "Look. Look at this. This is what's wrong with us. This is why people do things that we can't explain."

It happens every generation. In the 90's it was MTV. In the 80's it was punk music. The 70's it was rock and roll like Kiss. In the 60's it was Gunsmoke. In the 50's it was comic books. Before that several crime movies were blamed, though to be fair what young man doesn't want to be Humphrey Bogart or James Cagney?

[Am1vf]

All those teachers and relatives should stop watching television, it rots the brain;)

[TEWR]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The back of games do have warning labels on them, and every M rated game requires (in the U.S.-I can't speak for other countries) a photo identity with proof of being at least 17 years old to even purchase. Strong language, sexual themes, minor language, the warnings are right there on the game case for the parents to look at before buying them for the kids.

Yup I frequently have to show my card just to prove I'm 20, as I look more like I'm younger than 18 without my facial hair. Though admittedly I think it's stupid that they'll ask for the card of people that are clearly adults well over the age of 18. That happened to a relative of mine about a year or two ago.

Mike Neel wrote...

People will always find something to blame society's problems on. It's easier to have something tangible that you can point at and say "Look. Look at this. This is what's wrong with us. This is why people do things that we can't explain."

It happens every generation. In the 90's it was MTV. In the 80's it was punk music. The 70's it was rock and roll like Kiss. In the 60's it was Gunsmoke. In the 50's it was comic books. Before that several crime movies were blamed, though to be fair what young man doesn't want to be Humphrey Bogart or James Cagney?

I wonder what people blamed it on back in the 1800s and prior to that...

I find it sad that society would rather plug their ears and lay blame at other peoples' feet and accuse them of things that aren't the case rather than do their research to find out the truth.

simfamSP wrote...

I have this English Teacher who goes on and on about how video games degrade our minds and the worst thing is...

SHE KEEPS ON USING COD AS AN EXAMPLE!!!!!

She's a great teacher and all, but give your self a break and stop drowning yourself in ignorance. And please...for once...will you actually PLAY a video game instead of critising something you know nothing about?

Oooh if the risk of expulsion and suspension were non existant.... the things I'd say xD

Even Call of Duty is something that can help brain development. It focuses more on quick reflexes, strategic modern warfare, stealth, teamwork, etc.

Certainly it may attract the wrong group of people -- 8 year olds that say "You're my ****!" mostly -- but it isn't a "I killz you bad. Brain cellz go buh-bye" type of game.

Now, it may certainly attract some people that aren't that intelligent, but it is a complex game. Just in a different style of complexity than RPG gamers are used to. Other FPS games though might do a better job of nailing this style of complexity though.

If you remove the campers and noob-tubers that is. Otherwise there isn't really any complexity to the game as you'll just get sniped/grenaded all the frickin' time .

I actually really resent it when I see some of the posts made by people on here claiming that CoD is specifically aimed at the idiots of the world. Because I happen to like Call of Duty and I'm not an idiot. Many of my friends like Call of Duty and they aren't idiots. Many of their friends like Call of Duty and aren't idiots.

And Robin Williams likes Call of Duty, and he sure as hell isn't an idiot. Especially since he also likes Zelda, RPGs, MMORPGs, and other styles of games.

[esper]

@Ehtereal, you are 20? Take is a compliment that I thought you were older.
I honestely thought we were past the viode-game is the root of all evil by now. It is mnany years since I have heard anyone say that publicy here in denmark.
It makes me sad that many apperently still come with that argument out in the bigger world. :-(

[Il Divo]

simfamSP wrote...

I have this English Teacher who goes on and on about how video games degrade our minds and the worst thing is...

SHE KEEPS ON USING COD AS AN EXAMPLE!!!!!

She's a great teacher and all, but give your self a break and stop drowning yourself in ignorance. And please...for once...will you actually PLAY a video game instead of critising something you know nothing about?

Oooh if the risk of expulsion and suspension were non existant.... the things I'd say xD

Especially amongst anti-gaming critics, you'll always find people willing to use the worst possible examples to make their point. But if we followed that line of logic, we could deconstruct any literary medium.

[Riknas]

John Epler wrote...

Well, it's not a perfect formula. I think the how of getting around the obstacle is extremely important as well. If all you're doing is magnifying the irritation of an obstacle, then I don't think that's a good end goal.

Not to back pedal on the rest of you (all the while doing it entirely...)

Indeed. I think the difference is between making a new and interesting feature, and then making a not so interesting feature. The two ways of handling the latter is:

1) To either see why the annoying feature is not interesting, and then to implement the changes that make it more enjoyable. 

2) To see why it's not enjoyable, and if it's even possible/practical to make it interesting. If all you can do is upgrade "annoyance" to "frustrating nightmare", you're probably doing it wrong.

That said, I think we could apply this to the Hardcore mode of needing to eat, once it becomes so easy it's just annoying, we could all probably conclude the solution is certainly not to implement a vitamin system to ensure we eat food with th appropriate calcium intake so that we don't develop brittle bones, or consume too many fatty foods that would lead to your character having heart problems.

Modifié par Riknas, 16 janvier 2012 - 02:41 .

[John Epler]

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life.

[Pzykozis]

simfamSP wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life.

... so hey! The Witcher 2... I think Bioware wouldn't be able to do what the Witcher 2 did with Chapter II, if DA3 will be about the end of the world though, I'm hoping for more that one type of BIG ending.

I'm not sure that Chapter 2 was all that wise of a decision in the first place, widely branching story was fun and awesome, Chapter 3 was terrible, and felt all over the shop.

I prefer more personal branches i.e. I choose Y so X happens and it unfolds it a less titanic hitting iceberg way, rather than I choose Y SO THE WORLD SPLITS IN TWO AND A GOD WALKS FORWARD AND PUNTS ME FOR CONVERSION (Rugby for those who don't know). Leading to Z which after the god punt is slapdash and cobbled together.

I did enjoy it but in hindisight it just feels like they stretched themselves a bit far and then suffered the consequences.

[Yrkoon]

^I agree, even though they seem to be in a  perfect position to do precisely the same thing as Witcher2's chapter 2 plot fork.

Assuming DA3 pursues the Mage vs. Templar conflict, the situation practically begs for it. There's 2 opposing sides (Templars  vs. Mages), DA3's act 2 *could* do a fork, where players who side with the mages have a "mages-based" chapter two that takes place in a city and its surrounding environs (side quests and all), while those who take the Templars  path are sent off to another city and surrounding environs (side quests and all).

Also, if you choose the Tempar   path, you can sleep with  Bioware's version of Ves, while those who took the mage route have to find some Succubus, or just break into a house and watch 2 plot-critical chicks making out instead.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:59 .

[sangy]

Dragon Age, Skyrim and The Witcher are all very different and I think that's great. As everyone has their own taste. I did enjoy both The Witcher and Skyrim, but Dragon Age is without a doubt my favorite.

The Witcher's battle system was uncomfortable to me. I like to play on PS3 and the PC controls were a mess. A lot of the time I had no idea of where to progress the story. It was a bit tedious trying to finish the game, so I didn't.

Skyrim, like Oblivion, has a ton of content and a huge open world to roam. I think Skyrim was a huge improvement from Oblivion, but still the battle is a bit boring and overall the feel is empty. I never really felt a bond between my character and others.

Dragon Age does really well with the battle system, storyline and characters overall. DAO's storyline was my favorite, but DA2 brought better graphics and the battle system was so much better. My opinion of course.

It could be a Bioware thing, because even though different, Mass Effect has a lot of the same feeling of Dragon Age. The depth of story and characters and the bond you feel with them.

Sure, they probably appreciate others' ideas and individuality, but I think Skyrim and Witcher have a lot more to learn from Dragon Age. ^^

[Am1vf]

Zanallen wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

How can you not care for challenge?  I don't know if I've ever seen someone state something like that, so I'm curious, what would be the point of trying to be successful at playing the game?  Are you into gaming mainly for the stories, perhaps the scenery?

I can't answer for the other poster, but essentially I play games for the story. I couldn't care less about the challenge. I play games in order to wind down after a long day at work or school or sometimes work and school. I like to experience a well crafted story, same reason I read a book or watch a movie. I really don't want to have to replay a particular battle a few times because the enemy kills my party. I don't find that to be an enjoyable aspect of my choosen method of entertainment. I prefer to keep my challenges in the real world where I receive tangible satisfaction for overcoming them.

Zanallen answered it for me, so when I came back (two days later) I didn't feel the need to answer personally , but I've been thinking about it and I would like to add that I do enjoy challenge in the scarce ocasions when it helps build the ambient of the game. For example with the way the things in Call of Pripyat attack you helps in making a dangerous enviroment and forces you to learn each one's moves and weaknesses and stay alert so you really feel more like a "s.t.a.l.k.e.r." and less as another guy who happenst to shoot at a bunch of polygons. But when a bunch of starving thugs is a challenge for a supposedly seasoned adventurer then it is just annoying. When I played the singlepayer demo of the first Call of Duty (back around 2003 I think), I played it in the hardest setting because the whole "one second with your head out of cover and you're dead" made it feel more like a war.

I guess what  I am trying to say is that I do enjoy a challenge when it adds complexity and ambience, but I don't go to games looking for a chalenge for the sake of it, I get enough of it in real life, some fights are supposed to be relatively easy.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 16 janvier 2012 - 07:30 .

[TEWR]

simfamSP wrote...

I was more focused on the fact that shes an English teacher talking about how games degrade culture and then uses Call of Duty as her best example of a video game that degrades literature... I mean c'mon!

But anyway... I'm sorry that I offended you about CoD, and even if I didn't mean it then, I have said it a number of times. I have all the three CoD games and Modern Warefare and MW2. I gave MW2 away after I realised what a piece of crap it was.

Oh no you didn't offend me about CoD. I tried to phrase my post to say when other people say that. You didn't say that I know.

That said, the story of the MW games is one of its strong points imo.

John Epler wrote...

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life

That would probably be my fault. So I'll stop as I don't want to be the reason why this thread gets locked.

Can I ask a question? What are your -- as in the team as a whole -- opinions on how to make combat better in the future?

[TEWR]

simfamSP wrote...

Can I ask a question? What are your -- as in the team as a whole -- opinions on how to make combat better in the future?

I would like that answer too. Though I found DA2's combat and DA:O's combat similar at it's core, the situations that we were put into was dealt much better in DA:O. That being said the combat situations in Legacy and MOTA were done superbly, so kudos on that.

But first things first... the tactical camera must be added back I feel. There were many times I could have used that bloody thing xD

'Ceilings' were kind of useless in DA2 don't you think? With the recycled areas and all there wasn't much to look at that we haven't seen. I still think it worked pretty well with DA:O (Sacred Ashes Ruin looks gorgeous.)

Personally I found DAII's combat too one-sided and I never found DAO's combat tactical. Both relied too much on mook enemies that display any semblance of actual combat tactics.

MotA and Legacy are steps towards the right direction, but I still think that Bioware has a long way to go to actually make tactical combat.

Regarding ceilings, couldn't Bioware still put ceilings in the game but have them disappear when you pull the camera back? In fact, isn't that what DAO did?

I mean, as you said ceilings don't mean much when there aren't many details in the area.

[Pzykozis]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Regarding ceilings, couldn't Bioware still put ceilings in the game but have them disappear when you pull the camera back? In fact, isn't that what DAO did?

I mean, as you said ceilings don't mean much when there aren't many details in the area.

Perhaps this isnt the problem for Bioware but to me as an artist, the problem with that is simply that you have to build the assets with the camera angle in mind, the detail you see from an isometic view is different from that you see from a TP cam, the ceilings in particular since you don't see them at all in isometic view, the problem then is trying to get the graphical fidelity of both right without interfering with each other whilst also having strict budgets aswell as strict man hours.

Not to mention that essentially TP requires bigger more detailed textures cause you're closer to the objects but then this more detailed texture could just look overly busy from a distance where the detail just starts to blur together. You could mipmap and stuff so that they essentially changed texture as you zoomed in and out but then like I said the more textures and assets you do because of this means more man hours and brushing up against budgets quicker (this is poly and texture budgets rather than money budgets), aswell as possibly because of man hours causing problems with the visual quality over the entire game.

Basically it's a problem of stretching yourself too thin.

and I'm biased and prefer TP cam so don't take my shinies .

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

John Epler wrote...

We are massively off-topic at this point. I'm going to give it a little time to see if we can pull things back on-topic, but otherwise I'll lock it as we may have reached the end of this thread's useful life

That would probably be my fault. So I'll stop as I don't want to be the reason why this thread gets locked.

Can I ask a question? What are your -- as in the team as a whole -- opinions on how to make combat better in the future?

Well, you can certainly ask - though I'm afraid I'm not able to tell you a whole lot on that front. My focus is more on the narrative side of things than combat. And really, I live in fear of saying the wrong thing and revealing something that shouldn't be revealed yet.

What I -can- say is that I would expect a renewed focus on things such as positioning and tactics where combat's concerned. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin would likely provide better indications of where we want to go in this regard than the DA2 base game, but a little further down that path, if that makes sense.

It's very difficult for me to comment on this with any kind of authority, really. I suppose my generic answer would be 'we've seen the concerns some of our fans had with DA2 (and to a lesser extent Legacy and MotA) and are working to address them'. It's not very satisfying, I know, but it's really all I can say. I work with my back to the door now, after all. I need to be cautious. Too much possibility of punching.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 16 janvier 2012 - 10:00 .

[Malanek]

I hope they aren't looking too hard. I can't stand the elder scroll games although I haven't tried skyrim. Morrowind and Oblivion put me off them completely. So many problems, lack of story, lack of action, lack of purpose, lack of character interaction, limited dialogue, poor and unintuitive game system design. I just can't understand why those games are so popular.

[philippe willaume]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Can I ask a question? What are your -- as in the team as a whole -- opinions on how to make combat better in the future?

I would like that answer too. Though I found DA2's combat and DA:O's combat similar at it's core, the situations that we were put into was dealt much better in DA:O. That being said the combat situations in Legacy and MOTA were done superbly, so kudos on that.

But first things first... the tactical camera must be added back I feel. There were many times I could have used that bloody thing xD

'Ceilings' were kind of useless in DA2 don't you think? With the recycled areas and all there wasn't much to look at that we haven't seen. I still think it worked pretty well with DA:O (Sacred Ashes Ruin looks gorgeous.)

Personally I found DAII's combat too one-sided and I never found DAO's combat tactical. Both relied too much on mook enemies that display any semblance of actual combat tactics.

MotA and Legacy are steps towards the right direction, but I still think that Bioware has a long way to go to actually make tactical combat.

Regarding ceilings, couldn't Bioware still put ceilings in the game but have them disappear when you pull the camera back? In fact, isn't that what DAO did?

I mean, as you said ceilings don't mean much when there aren't many details in the area.

Hello
I think you had more time to prepare in DA:0 as well there was more choke points (and no paratroopers, save for the shrieks, still remember the ambush on the bridge..).
But if I am honest it is more a result of skills, having two weapons to specialize in, may be bigger map and the abilities to engage at a greater range.
 
Personally I am more in favour of less hit points more lethal enemies.  It would be better if the enemies had more concerted approaches and tried to use cover better.

[TEWR]

JohnEpler wrote...


Well, you can certainly ask - though I'm afraid I'm not able to tell you a whole lot on that front. My focus is more on the narrative side of things than combat. And really, I live in fear of saying the wrong thing and revealing something that shouldn't be revealed yet.

What I -can- say is that I would expect a renewed focus on things such as positioning and tactics where combat's concerned. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin would likely provide better indications of where we want to go in this regard than the DA2 base game, but a little further down that path, if that makes sense.

It's very difficult for me to comment on this with any kind of authority, really. I suppose my generic answer would be 'we've seen the concerns some of our fans had with DA2 (and to a lesser extent Legacy and MotA) and are working to address them'. It's not very satisfying, I know, but it's really all I can say. I work with my back to the door now, after all. I need to be cautious. Too much possibility of punching.

Yes definitely take the corner seat. Allows you to stay away from the windows and doors and keep an eye out for enemies. And you can multitask by playing poker.

Though you should be wary if Chuck Norris comes in. They say that underneath his beard there is no chin. Only a third fist.

Anyway, jokes aside it's a shame you can't say more than that, but I understand. I'd like to see the enemies use actual tactics in battle and respond appropriately to certain moves. I think a few pages back I suggested S&S enemies raise their shields to take less damage from Hail of Arrows, and I've also talked about the need for the enemies to use some of the same animations/abilities we use to maintain a level of consistency.

I think that as it stands, the enemies just try to use pure force to take us down but don't actually think in battle, even if AI is limiting. They don't use actual tactics that real fighters would use. No phalanx formations, tortoise formations, shield-to-the-sky if they're scattered, etc.

So I hope this gets improved in the future.

I do remember some months back you talked about how Demons and Abominations didn't appear to pose as much of a threat as they were reputed to be and this would hopefully be addressed in the future. I hope this eventually comes to fruition.

Hello
I think you had more time to prepare in DA:0 as well there was more choke points (and no paratroopers, save for the shrieks, still remember the ambush on the bridge..).
But if I am honest it is more a result of skills, having two weapons to specialize in, may be bigger map and the abilities to engage at a greater range.
 
Personally I am more in favour of less hit points more lethal enemies.  It would be better if the enemies had more concerted approaches and tried to use cover better.

I'm semi-opposite myself. I prefer more hit points as well as more lethal enemies. In Origins I found that the battles would end far too quickly, even on Nightmare.

So I'd like the enemies to have more health, but for the party's health and mana/stamina to automatically upgrade upon level up using the FFXII method, but still allow the player to invest points in constitution and willpower if he/she so desires.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 janvier 2012 - 10:20 .