549 réponses à ce sujet

[abaris]

xsdob wrote...

1. New players have just as much right to this series than any other players out there, they are not the reason changes were made to the series. The bioware team wanted to experiment a little with the game, they did these same thing in lair of the shadow broker with the auto-dialouge conversations in battle. They tweek their games mechanics with each instalment to gauge the reaction of the fanbase. They'll probably return to the old bioware system of micromanaging dialouge but keep the combat the same.

Sorry, but that's beyond my understanding. Why does it have to be dumbed down for newcomers? That's the same assumption Bioware and/or EA made - that the game has to be tailored for some next to illiterate dummies with short attention spans to make it. That "appealing to a broader audience" is in itself a well disguised insult to casual players.

What's more, you can always leave something out if you're only playing to shoot something up, but if you want some depth, you - as a player - can't add what isn't there to begin with.

And no, two games in a row don't point to them returning to micromanaging. It points to them still being on the prawl for some enigmatic audience that is called the COD crowd. Again, an insult in PR disguise, since they obviously assume that this kind of audience is a little bit thick and only understands the KEWL factor.

[Getorex]

abaris wrote...

xsdob wrote...

1. New players have just as much right to this series than any other players out there, they are not the reason changes were made to the series. The bioware team wanted to experiment a little with the game, they did these same thing in lair of the shadow broker with the auto-dialouge conversations in battle. They tweek their games mechanics with each instalment to gauge the reaction of the fanbase. They'll probably return to the old bioware system of micromanaging dialouge but keep the combat the same.

Sorry, but that's beyond my understanding. Why does it have to be dumbed down for newcomers? That's the same assumption Bioware and/or EA made - that the game has to be tailored for some next to illiterate dummies with short attention spans to make it. That "appealing to a broader audience" is in itself a well disguised insult to casual players.

What's more, you can always leave something out if you're only playing to shoot something up, but if you want some depth, you - as a player - can't add what isn't there to begin with.

And no, two games in a row don't point to them returning to micromanaging. It points to them still being on the prawl for some enigmatic audience that is called the COD crowd. Again, an insult in PR disguise, since they obviously assume that this kind of audience is a little bit thick and only understands the KEWL factor.

Well said.  Aiming for newcomers or a more general audience, particularly for the last game IN A SERIES, is a loser from the beginning.  Making it so newcomers can jump right in without a blink means they have to simplify and gut A LOT.  It means they can (and do) ignore things that happen in ME1 and 2 because what would a newcomer know of that stuff?  You don't want to go confusing them and all.  Aiming for a more general audience means less RPG and more action/shooting because more general audiences don't do thinking and exploration and spending lots of time with a game.  They play a GAME for easy and quick entertainment value, nothing else.  They are CASUAL gamers.  The quick drop onto the couch and shoot stuff until it's time for dinner or time to study or whatever.  Its downtime for the brain, not mulling and thinking time.  That means the game gets a big dose of SUCK.

[xsdob]

Getorex wrote...

abaris wrote...

xsdob wrote...

1. New players have just as much right to this series than any other players out there, they are not the reason changes were made to the series. The bioware team wanted to experiment a little with the game, they did these same thing in lair of the shadow broker with the auto-dialouge conversations in battle. They tweek their games mechanics with each instalment to gauge the reaction of the fanbase. They'll probably return to the old bioware system of micromanaging dialouge but keep the combat the same.

Sorry, but that's beyond my understanding. Why does it have to be dumbed down for newcomers? That's the same assumption Bioware and/or EA made - that the game has to be tailored for some next to illiterate dummies with short attention spans to make it. That "appealing to a broader audience" is in itself a well disguised insult to casual players.

What's more, you can always leave something out if you're only playing to shoot something up, but if you want some depth, you - as a player - can't add what isn't there to begin with.

And no, two games in a row don't point to them returning to micromanaging. It points to them still being on the prawl for some enigmatic audience that is called the COD crowd. Again, an insult in PR disguise, since they obviously assume that this kind of audience is a little bit thick and only understands the KEWL factor.

Well said.  Aiming for newcomers or a more general audience, particularly for the last game IN A SERIES, is a loser from the beginning.  Making it so newcomers can jump right in without a blink means they have to simplify and gut A LOT.  It means they can (and do) ignore things that happen in ME1 and 2 because what would a newcomer know of that stuff?  You don't want to go confusing them and all.  Aiming for a more general audience means less RPG and more action/shooting because more general audiences don't do thinking and exploration and spending lots of time with a game.  They play a GAME for easy and quick entertainment value, nothing else.  They are CASUAL gamers.  The quick drop onto the couch and shoot stuff until it's time for dinner or time to study or whatever.  Its downtime for the brain, not mulling and thinking time.  That means the game gets a big dose of SUCK.

You people didn't even read my post did you? I already explained why changes were made.

And what do the 2 of you do? You immediatly ignore my post and turn it into a it's all the new players fault war all over again.

I never said the games being dumbed down for new players was a good thing, I said that they changed it to experiment with gameplay mechanics.

Learn to use your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills instead of just using talking points, tends to work much better for your arguments.

[Getorex]

xsdob wrote...

Getorex wrote...

abaris wrote...

xsdob wrote...

1. New players have just as much right to this series than any other players out there, they are not the reason changes were made to the series. The bioware team wanted to experiment a little with the game, they did these same thing in lair of the shadow broker with the auto-dialouge conversations in battle. They tweek their games mechanics with each instalment to gauge the reaction of the fanbase. They'll probably return to the old bioware system of micromanaging dialouge but keep the combat the same.

Sorry, but that's beyond my understanding. Why does it have to be dumbed down for newcomers? That's the same assumption Bioware and/or EA made - that the game has to be tailored for some next to illiterate dummies with short attention spans to make it. That "appealing to a broader audience" is in itself a well disguised insult to casual players.

What's more, you can always leave something out if you're only playing to shoot something up, but if you want some depth, you - as a player - can't add what isn't there to begin with.

And no, two games in a row don't point to them returning to micromanaging. It points to them still being on the prawl for some enigmatic audience that is called the COD crowd. Again, an insult in PR disguise, since they obviously assume that this kind of audience is a little bit thick and only understands the KEWL factor.

Well said.  Aiming for newcomers or a more general audience, particularly for the last game IN A SERIES, is a loser from the beginning.  Making it so newcomers can jump right in without a blink means they have to simplify and gut A LOT.  It means they can (and do) ignore things that happen in ME1 and 2 because what would a newcomer know of that stuff?  You don't want to go confusing them and all.  Aiming for a more general audience means less RPG and more action/shooting because more general audiences don't do thinking and exploration and spending lots of time with a game.  They play a GAME for easy and quick entertainment value, nothing else.  They are CASUAL gamers.  The quick drop onto the couch and shoot stuff until it's time for dinner or time to study or whatever.  Its downtime for the brain, not mulling and thinking time.  That means the game gets a big dose of SUCK.

You people didn't even read my post did you? I already explained why changes were made.

And what do the 2 of you do? You immediatly ignore my post and turn it into a it's all the new players fault war all over again.

I never said the games being dumbed down for new players was a good thing, I said that they changed it to experiment with gameplay mechanics.

Learn to use your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills instead of just using talking points, tends to work much better for your arguments.

Um, no.  I mostly ignored your post and was responding specifically to the above post.  

As for Bioware experimenting...sure.  They do that all the time as do all game companies but they did so in the background of seeking to simplify the game (so they wouldn't have to work so hard, so they wouldn't have to meet their promises, so they could bring in airhead noobs).  It leads to a dumbed down game no matter what.

[abaris]

xsdob wrote...

I never said the games being dumbed down for new players was a good thing, I said that they changed it to experiment with gameplay mechanics.

They did experiment, but by their own admission to cater to "a broader audience". "Streamlining" is the other word frequently pulled from the PR departments backsides.

That's not to explore new game mechanics, that's because they desperately hunt for the sales figures other franchises generate. Again, more or less, by their own admission.

And I certainly didn't say I'm against new players, I'm against the assumption that new players or casual gamers are idiots and the rest has to tag along with the slowest ship in the convoy. Meaning, what we observed with DAII and ME3 is catering to the lowest common denominator and a rather pathetic try to create a Jack of All Trades appealing to all audiences.

[Getorex]

abaris wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I never said the games being dumbed down for new players was a good thing, I said that they changed it to experiment with gameplay mechanics.

They did experiment, but by their own admission to cater to "a broader audience". "Streamlining" is the other word frequently pulled from the PR departments backsides.

That's not to explore new game mechanics, that's because they desperately hunt for the sales figures other franchises generate. Again, more or less, by their own admission.

And I certainly didn't say I'm against new players, I'm against the assumption that new players or casual gamers are idiots and the rest has to tag along with the slowest ship in the convoy. Meaning, what we observed with DAII and ME3 is catering to the lowest common denominator and a rather pathetic try to create a Jack of All Trades appealing to all audiences.

I'm not automatically opposed to bringing in noobs so long as doing so doesn't subtract a damn thing from the game.  If the noobs what to fully understand the story then they can get and play the previous games in the series to get the full story and manner of play.  I am opposed to doing ANYTHING to simplify or dumb down or make generic (lowest common denominator) the gameplay in order to cater to noobs so that they don't have to ask any questions about what is going on or why.  If they want that info they can play ME1 and ME2 and even maybe read th the books.

[HammerFists]

Getorex wrote...

What I would like to see developers do is simply build the biggest, best game and story they can with an eye on ALMOST the best hardware available to PCs.  Not the best possible hardware, just the upper levels.  Then they can look at the limitations of other target platforms and pare and tailor the game down to be the best possible for THOSE platforms.  Release it broadly.  Each platform gets a game that their system can handle, everyone's happy, and the game technology is pushed and improved.

It's called The Witcher 2.

[Getorex]

HammerFists wrote...

Getorex wrote...

What I would like to see developers do is simply build the biggest, best game and story they can with an eye on ALMOST the best hardware available to PCs.  Not the best possible hardware, just the upper levels.  Then they can look at the limitations of other target platforms and pare and tailor the game down to be the best possible for THOSE platforms.  Release it broadly.  Each platform gets a game that their system can handle, everyone's happy, and the game technology is pushed and improved.

It's called The Witcher 2.

I'll look at it but...swords and sorcery.  Not my thing.  Just me but I don't like midieval armor, swords, longbows, spears, wizards, incantations, etc.  Just me.  Be nice if they'd do what you say they did for Witcher 2 for a techie/sci-fi game. 

[Andromidius]

To be honest, the trial we all envisioned at the start of ME3 would have helped bring new players in anyway. You'd have the main character's backstory explained, big decisions can be made right from the getgo, and it keeps all the old fans happy too.

And besides, its not like many games start your character off from the very start anyway. You're dropped in at a certain crossroads in their life, not really knowing much about what they did beforehand. And most of those stories handle it just right. Mass Effect 3 had it easy with that regard!

[Darthlawsuit]

Itd a 3/10

[Phategod1]

I read some of those reviews, and most of them are insipid. I swear most of the "fans" reviews are deplorable.

[Phategod1]

jreezy wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.

We are?

They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".

We're not?

They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  

Word? 

Is it me? or all PC  gamers Snobbish A-holes? 

[KotorEffect3]

Phategod1 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.

We are?

They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".

We're not?

They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  

Word? 

Is it me? or all PC  gamers Snobbish A-holes? 

Not of all them but a good number of them are.

[KotorEffect3]

HammerFists wrote...

Getorex wrote...

What I would like to see developers do is simply build the biggest, best game and story they can with an eye on ALMOST the best hardware available to PCs.  Not the best possible hardware, just the upper levels.  Then they can look at the limitations of other target platforms and pare and tailor the game down to be the best possible for THOSE platforms.  Release it broadly.  Each platform gets a game that their system can handle, everyone's happy, and the game technology is pushed and improved.

It's called The Witcher 2.

And when 3 and 4 come out people will turn against that series as well, it is inevitable.

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 27 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[Gatt9]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.

We are?

They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".

We're not?

They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  

Word? 

Is it me? or all PC  gamers Snobbish A-holes? 

Not of all them but a good number of them are.

First,  let me say Gatorex was way out of line.

Second,  most PC Gamers aren't.  Console gamers just have a tendency to be hyper-sensitive about their systems and games,  and have an amazing tendency to freak out when anyone dares to suggest that consoles aren't the be all end all of gaming.  I suspect the reason for it is here...

http://arstechnica.c...-to-self-image/

[xsdob]

No, not really freaking out about inferior platform performance, more about being called a retard and an idiot who can't follow stories or plot due to my short attention span from apparently simply enjoying a different genre of game along with rpgs.

Nobody freaks out until the personal insults get used, which is often in the opening post about why pc is better.

[crazyrabbits]

Gatt9 wrote...
Second,  most PC Gamers aren't.  Console gamers just have a tendency to be hyper-sensitive about their systems and games,  and have an amazing tendency to freak out when anyone dares to suggest that consoles aren't the be all end all of gaming.  I suspect the reason for it is here...

http://arstechnica.c...-to-self-image/

Console gamers may be prone to hysteria regarding the "better console", but PC gamers have been told for a decade plus that computer gaming is "dead", despite several titles selling millions on the system. Hell, I remember reading in PC Gamer more than a decade ago a "State of the PC Union" article where the editor at the time talked about debunking popular myths about the industry's perception of the "dying PC generation".

Both sides have their sore points.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 27 mai 2012 - 05:26 .

[Uccio]

^ exactly, as is there was a push to make all PC gamers move to consoles.
*thinks aloud* "Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?"

[Shepard108278]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.

We are?

They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".

We're not?

They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  

Word? 

Is it me? or all PC  gamers Snobbish A-holes? 

Not of all them but a good number of them are.

I'm not but he obviously is.

[Shepard108278]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

HammerFists wrote...

Getorex wrote...

What I would like to see developers do is simply build the biggest, best game and story they can with an eye on ALMOST the best hardware available to PCs.  Not the best possible hardware, just the upper levels.  Then they can look at the limitations of other target platforms and pare and tailor the game down to be the best possible for THOSE platforms.  Release it broadly.  Each platform gets a game that their system can handle, everyone's happy, and the game technology is pushed and improved.

It's called The Witcher 2.

And when 3 and 4 come out people will turn against that series as well, it is inevitable.

I hope not that's my second favorite series.

[abaris]

KotorEffect3 wrote...


And when 3 and 4 come out people will turn against that series as well, it is inevitable.

If it's bad compared to it's predecessors, maybe.

I'm always amazed that people try to explain away the simple fact that people don't agree with the new direction Bioware is taking. All their games up until DAII received top user ratings.

Start to wonder why that is because it's the breaking point in a long series of great games. It's where they boarded the streamlining express to appeal to a "broader audience".

[crazyrabbits]

abaris wrote...

If it's bad compared to it's predecessors, maybe.

I'm always amazed that people try to explain away the simple fact that people don't agree with the new direction Bioware is taking. All their games up until DAII received top user ratings.

Start to wonder why that is because it's the breaking point in a long series of great games. It's where they boarded the streamlining express to appeal to a "broader audience".

The demarcation line is quite clear. The projects Bioware still had control over/had already started developing by the time EA took over (Origins/ME2) are still great games, if affected by some minor corporate elements (the NPC begging you to download the DLC in Origins, the pre-order exclusives for ME2). The first two "real" projects under them have been plagued by bugs, controversy, story problems, balancing issues, etc.

People are always going to feel threatened and defend works/franchises that they feel they have a personal stake or involvement in. I've done it before myself, plenty of times. Eventually, I learned to separate myself from that mentality, and judge a game by its own merits. I can enjoy a game and note that it still has massive problems from a gameplay and story standpoint..