764 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I know that in my circle of RP gaming friends, the ones who also play shooters like Skyrim more than the ones who don't. Of course, the sample size there is rather small and useless for drawing conclusions.

Mine is similar as well. At least I successfully converted them to the superior Battlefield series (and I'm not just being a shill lol. I have always loved the BF games going back to BF1942 and love what BF does).

By the same token, I know some that don't care for BioWare games because their expectation of what an RPG is are Bethesda games.

I'm not a huge fan of Bethesda games, but I did enjoy Fallout 3 for what it provided (and I'm a huge fan of New Vegas... I need to pick up the DLCs for those and play Sawyer's mod...)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm not a huge fan of Bethesda games

I wasn't until Fallout 3, and then I discovered VATS.

I hate action combat, so the ability to pause the game and select a target was wonderful.

Similarly, the only thing that made ME playable for me at all was the ability to aim while paused.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...

batlin wrote...


Assorted pro Bethesday stuff

Bethesda makes games in a completely different subgenre.  Maybe the TES sold so well because it was a "Better" game in some sense.  Or they care more about quality.  Or whatever.

Its also entirely possible that story and RP optional exploration games are more popular than narrative intensive games like Bioware makes.  I don't know. But I doubt that DA2, even with the missing polish, would have sold like Skyrim.

I don't thinks it's solely about narrative. I thinks it has more to do with the question, "what can a game offfer to player?  Does it has to be all about story+ combat+optional romance only+decsion making? What else can be played?

Narrative intense games has this one very bad habit. Linearity or lack the sense of freedom to play the game on your own term due to too much handheld or railroaded plot. So once you competed a story there is little value to play again. There is no reason for you to be railroaded again. A problem that doesn't exist for people who enjoy Skyrim and  CoD. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 07 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Narrative intense games has this one very bad habit. Linearity or lack the sense of freedom to play the game on your own term due to too much handheld or railroaded plot. So once you competed a story there is little value to play again. There is no reason for you to be railroaded again. A problem that doesn't exist for people who enjoy Skyrim and CoD.

It's a problem that didn't seem to bother games like Final Fantasy 7 either though. Granted there was some goofy stuff that the player could do, but would it have been less well received had the Golden Saucer not existed in the game?

[sickpixie]

batlin wrote...

One, I'm talking about Bethesda the developer, not Bethesda the publisher.

The former is under the thumb of the latter when it comes to making decisions.

Two,
the amount of Morrowind and Daggerfall fans who feel slighted because
there's no longer a miss chance, a few less weapon types, glove and boot
armor not being left or right-specific, and so on and so forth are
likely veeeery small in number compared to the people who appreciate the
revamped and more intuitive combat system, the excess of quests even
compared to Oblivion, dragons, modding tools, etc made for Skyrim since
there's no public outcry about how horrible Skyrim is that it's
metacritic score plunged into the red.

You know I could turn this paragraph into a mad libs game with Mass Effect and Dragon Age? I wouldn't necessarily call Oblivion intuitive either, thanks to the way level scaling worked you could easily find yourself massively underpowered if you focused on the wrong skills.

Additionally, public outcry, especially on metacritic, is just noise and not a good indicator of the general reception of any given thing. Diablo 3 sold over 6 million copies in a week and its metacritic user average right now is even worse than Dragon Age 2's. So if we were to use the Holy User Aggregate Score as gospel, Diablo 3 is a worse game than Dragon Age 2.

Also I do not understand
this concept of EA doing what it does because it's a publicly traded
company while Zenimax is not. What, so that means EA has the right to
make rock-stupid and pig-headed decisions so long as they're in a
misguided attempt to make more money?

It doesn't excuse it, but it explains why one company would do things differently when compared to another.

batlin wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious what a Venn diagram of COD players and Skyrim players looks like.

I have a feeling a lot of CoD fans wouldn't like a game unless it involved online multiplayer, guns, and a voice chat to scream into. Not exactly things Skyrim is heavy on.

http://www.gamasutra...n_Of_Skyrim.php

What about accessibility -- making Skyrim a game that's
inviting to people who might not play RPGs as much, and also the
hardcore people who have been playing The Elder Scrolls since the
beginning?




"You look at Call of Duty, the most popular game in the world, and
that's actually pretty hardcore. At the end of the day, it's a hardcore
game, has RPG elements in multiplayer, making classes, picking perks. I
think the audiences are there, and we tend to make our game more for
ourselves and other people who play a lot of games.
"

Isn't that the same sentiment Fernando Melo once had..?

[Vormaerin]

sickpixie wrote...


Isn't that the same sentiment Fernando Melo once had..?

Don't you dare stop the CoD slanging matches. How will anyone justify their RP superiority if they can't expound on the inferiority of CoD players?

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Narrative intense games has this one very bad habit. Linearity or lack the sense of freedom to play the game on your own term due to too much handheld or railroaded plot. So once you competed a story there is little value to play again. There is no reason for you to be railroaded again. A problem that doesn't exist for people who enjoy Skyrim and CoD.

It's a problem that didn't seem to bother games like Final Fantasy 7 either though. Granted there was some goofy stuff that the player could do, but would it have been less well received had the Golden Saucer not existed in the game?

You can't have everything in one game.  I would rather play Jade Empire, Planescape, or the Dragon Ages over Skyrim or its like any day of the week.  You only get non linearity by weakening the story.  Maybe you can get some aimless wandering built into your story, like in the first Baldur's Gate. But you do end up back on the bad guy's trail.

Mass Effect 1 & 2 had exploration in various degrees, but it always felt out of place.   Why am I flying around hoping to find an adventure site when time sensitive stuff is waiting?  Sure, its not actually time sensitive in the game mechanics, but it clearly is in the story.   BG2 had this problem, too.

[batlin]

sickpixie wrote...

The former is under the thumb of the latter when it comes to making decisions.

I wouldn't say the bad games Beth publishes are due to EA-like demands, but rather that the other developers in Beth aren't all that good.

You know I could turn this paragraph into a mad libs game with Mass Effect and Dragon Age? I wouldn't necessarily call Oblivion intuitive either, thanks to the way level scaling worked you could easily find yourself massively underpowered if you focused on the wrong skills.

And Skyrim vastly improved on the leveling system by doing away with the pointless attribute system since the only purpose of attributes was to raise or lower your skills.

Additionally, public outcry, especially on metacritic, is just noise and not a good indicator of the general reception of any given thing. Diablo 3 sold over 6 million copies in a week and its metacritic user average right now is even worse than Dragon Age 2's. So if we were to use the Holy User Aggregate Score as gospel, Diablo 3 is a worse game than Dragon Age 2.

I'm not using metacritic as an accurate metric of how well a game is recieved by fans, but that being said, Diablo 3 is an absolute mess. Even playering single player you can get booted out of your own game because your connection to the server can get low.

I have little love for Dragon Age 2, but at least you can play it.

It doesn't excuse it, but it explains why one company would do things differently when compared to another.

And I never argued against that, only that their actions, apparently in the interest of making more money, is inferior to another publisher that does not force its developers to skimp out.

"You look at Call of Duty, the most popular game in the world, and
that's actually pretty hardcore. At the end of the day, it's a hardcore
game, has RPG elements in multiplayer, making classes, picking perks. I
think the audiences are there, and we tend to make our game more for
ourselves and other people who play a lot of games."

Isn't that the same sentiment Fernando Melo once had..?

He pretty clearly makes the distinction between "RPG" and "RPG elements." Fernando Melo said CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc were RPGs period. Big difference.

Also he says they make their game for themselves. That's him saying he wants make games that the people at Bethesda would want to play, something he reiterates often. Here he said that yes, there is an audience within the CoD crowd, but he makes no claim that they will actually change their game to try to appeal more to them.

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 10:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

batlin wrote...

And Skyrim vastly improved on the leveling system by doing away with the pointless attribute system since the only purpose of attributes was to raise or lower your skills.

I miss the attributes in Skyrim.

Skyrim has by far the best levelling mechanic yet in an Elder Scrolls game, but I'd like to be able to manipulate core statistics that have an effect on a wide variety of skills.

The way attributes worked in Morrowind and Oblivion was awful.  Not having them is an improvement over those games.  But in an ideal world Bethesda would have fixed the attributes rather than throwing them away.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Narrative intense games has this one very bad habit. Linearity or lack the sense of freedom to play the game on your own term due to too much handheld or railroaded plot. So once you competed a story there is little value to play again. There is no reason for you to be railroaded again. A problem that doesn't exist for people who enjoy Skyrim and CoD.

It's a problem that didn't seem to bother games like Final Fantasy 7 either though. Granted there was some goofy stuff that the player could do, but would it have been less well received had the Golden Saucer not existed in the game?

FF7's linearity was simply overlooked because cinematic approach was uncommon at that time. Most people consider FF7's cinematic approach phemenon due to it's leading graphic presentation  I enjoy watching FF7 cutscenes but I never completed the game myself. I'm not comfortable with console's joystick.   

 I don't  think cinematic approach is phenomenal and effective as the days of FF7 and FF8 anymore. We have recent titles heavily rely on cinematic storytelling like Jurassic Park: The Movie and Dead Island. Still,  both are listed among 10 most disappointed games of the year, heavily critized for linearity.. In the end it's still FPS dominated the largest market segment. And Sykim look good to compete with them. Because Skyrim basically has the same element of FPS. Freedom and the feeling of being in the world as the character.. 

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...


He pretty clearly makes the distinction between "RPG" and "RPG elements." Fernando Melo said CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc were RPGs period. Big difference.

And I think you are splitting hairs.  The idea behind both statements is the same.  Granted, they skyrim guy has it easier, because Skyrim really only has RPG elements rather than being a full RPG.

People tend to think RPGs are slow, heavily text based games with awkward combat and lots of needless complexity (like inventory tetris).   So they don't play them.  But there's no requirement that RPGs have awkward combat and the wall of text issues can be ameliorated with good use of voice acting and cinematics.  There's still going to be plenty of text, of course.

But making RPGs slower and more text based is not considered a growth formula.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think cinematic approach is phenomenal and effective as the days of FF7 and FF8 anymore. We have recent titles heavily rely on cinematic storytelling like Jurassic Park: The Movie and Dead Island. Still, both are listed among 10 most disappointed games of the year, heavily critized for linearity.. In the end it's still FPS dominated the largest market segment. And Sykim look good to compete with them. Because Skyrim basically has the same element of FPS. Freedom and the feeling of being in the world as the character..

Dead Island is just a poor game, mired with a lot of technical issues that go way beyond linearity. I don't know enough about Jurassic Park though.

I'd also say that most FPS games today are exceptionally linear affairs, centered around flashy set pieces. The only thing non-linear about them is their multiplayer....

Linear games have been successful for decades and continue to be very successful.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

sickpixie wrote...

Additionally, public outcry, especially on metacritic, is just noise and not a good indicator of the general reception of any given thing. Diablo 3 sold over 6 million copies in a week and its metacritic user average right now is even worse than Dragon Age 2's. So if we were to use the Holy User Aggregate Score as gospel, Diablo 3 is a worse game than Dragon Age 2.

Diablo III is unique case. It takes 12 years for Blizzard to develop,  therefore, It may be possible that Diablo fans will buy it anyway despite metacritic score. Otherwise, they may have to wait another 12 years again before they get chance to play another Diablo title and some people cannot wait that long. 

[ashwind]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I miss the attributes in Skyrim.

Skyrim has by far the best levelling mechanic yet in an Elder Scrolls game, but I'd like to be able to manipulate core statistics that have an effect on a wide variety of skills.

The way attributes worked in Morrowind and Oblivion was awful.  Not having them is an improvement over those games.  But in an ideal world Bethesda would have fixed the attributes rather than throwing them away.

+1

I miss the attributes badly too and fully agree that while the attribute system in Morrowind/Oblivion are painful - Example: Oh no! I have to switch to another weapon in the middle of a dungeon because if I continue using my favorite weapon, I will level up and lose 8 attribute points which translates into being stagger to Oblivion by rats in a couple more levels!!

However, I think taking them out entirely is an overkill (Similar to how Bioware dealt with the messy inventory/loot system from ME1 to ME2) ... Bethesda should have found a better way. For a game that character advancement is based so heavily on skills, they sure have a strong fetish towards tagging a "Level" to the character. They should have removed "Level" instead of attributes imo but I am going off topic.

[ashwind]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

By the same token, I know some that don't care for BioWare games because their expectation of what an RPG is are Bethesda games.

I dont think everyone expect Bioware and Bethesda RPG to be the same - some fanatics will claim that one of them is truly an "RPG" but they offer different things. 

I play both DA and Skyrim as do many others and I am pretty sure most of us knows the difference. 

Some people like sandbox RPG and nearly everyone calls TES a sandbox RPG - which means they recognizes TES to be in such a category. TES creates a world for the player to "live in" and explore, it offers total freedom. That is what it is known for. That is what they continue to provide to players so well.

Bioware games on the other hand is known for its story and dramatic moments. Take a look at DA2, losing your sibling in the Deeps roads... it was underwhelmingly done. Losing your parent, again underwhelmingly done. Nearly every scene that has potential to be dramatic is underwhelmingly done...

You do not need to look to games made by other companies, just look at how emotional and dramatic ME3 Tuchanka & Rannoch missions are. Look at how emotional and epic DA:O does in its final mission and the Warden's funeral. That is what Bioware is known for, that is what is expected from Bioware. DA2 imo failed to deliver that and put too much effort into: Voice Acting and Voice Acting alone.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Linear games have been successful for decades and continue to be very successful.

Would you say your base of hardcore Bioware fans expect linear games from you as a developer?

I could play and love a dozen linear games, such as DE:HR, Uncharted or Escape from Monkey Island. 

I could play and love a dozen non-linear sandbox games, such as GTAIV, Skyrim or Saints Row. 

But based on the illusion Bioware has crafted in its games to incorporate choice while still telling a good core story (and I use the word illusion with best connotation possible, like a skilled magician), do you think that fans asking or even expecting this from the games is unreasonable? 

The important part of the term fanbase is 'base.' A base is what you construct a building on top of, adding and increasing within the constraints of the foundation you started on. In the military, a base is a central location, where your forces can have dependable supplies and be fortified. If you wander from you base too far in a battle, you become exposed and make the task of defending yourself incredibly more diffiicult. 

So regardless of all the talk about other companies and developers and publishers... does the hardcore, Bioware fanbase expect a linear game? If not, the.n shouldn't the foundation of the game design work off that premise?

[MerinTB]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
 We have recent titles heavily rely on cinematic storytelling like Jurassic Park: The Movie and Dead Island. Still,  both are listed among 10 most disappointed games of the year, heavily critized for linearity.

Can't speak to Jurassic Park, but Dead Island is neither linear nor one of the 10 most disappointing games of the year.

For one, Dead Island doesn't force you to go anywhere or do anything.  Sure, to get to later locations you have to complete certain events, but overall you can wander endlessly without ever following the main plot and have tons of fun... and that's not even considering bringing in other players at all.

Linear games FORCE you to go one direction, and give you little to nothing to do outside of the rails you are placed on.  80% of FFXIII is linear.  About 60% of DA2 is linear.  100% of most FPS's are extremely linear.  Dead Island, at best, is like 40% linear.

And for "10 Most Disappointing" - from what lists?  I found it on Wired's list, then on some other forum lists.  But you can find everything from Modern Warfare 3 to Portal 2 on SOMEONE'S most disappointing list.  In any case, most people were comparing the game to the trailer... and using the same standard, Dragon Age: Origins is equally disappointing as it plays NOTHING like that trailer.

Sorry, I really liked Dead Island - so much that it's hard for me to go back to New Vegas as the melee combat in Dead Island was so solid it makes all the TES games feel like crap.

[Allan Schumacher]

Would you say your base of hardcore Bioware fans expect linear games from you as a developer?

That is not related to the discussion that I was having, at which point someone said games like Skyrim are successful because they are non-linear, and gamers today don't like linear games. In fact, he cited linearity as being why other (non-BioWare) games are not successful.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Would you say your base of hardcore Bioware fans expect linear games from you as a developer?

That is not related to the discussion that I was having, at which point someone said games like Skyrim are successful because they are non-linear, and gamers today don't like linear games. In fact, he cited linearity as being why other (non-BioWare) games are not successful.

Fair enough... but it might tie back more to the concept of the OP, in questioning if Bioware is looking to expand and realign its fanbase for The Next Big Thing? 

[Iecerint]

Skyrim is a better-executed refinement of what made earlier Elder Scrolls games great.

[batlin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I miss the attributes in Skyrim.

Skyrim has byfar the best levelling mechanic yet in an Elder Scrolls game, but I'd like to be able to manipulate core statistics that have an effect on a wide variety of skills.

The way attributes worked in Morrowind and Oblivion was awful.  Not having them is an improvement over those
games.  But in an ideal world Bethesda would have fixed the attributes rather than throwing them away.

I don't know what attributes could have been used for in Skyrim. In games like D&D, your attributes affect way more than just your skills, they affect your bonus to accuracy, damage, armor class, saving throws, health, amount of available spells...TES just doesn't have mechanics in place for attributes to affect much more than your skills unless they wanted to completely change the leveling system.

But if you think about it, Intelligence and Constitution are still in there in the form of health, stamina and magic.

Vormaerin wrote...

And I think you are splitting hairs.  The idea behind both statements is the same.  Granted, they skyrim guy has it easier, because Skyrim really only has RPG elements rather than being a full RPG.

Exqueeze me? You're saying Skyrim isn't an RPG? TES is pretty much the gold standard in terms of player freedom and expression, so I can't see how anyone could call DA an RPG and Skyrim not.

People tend to think RPGs are slow, heavily text based games with awkward combat and lots of needless complexity (like inventory tetris).   So they don't play them.  But there's no requirement that RPGs have awkward combat and the wall of text issues can be ameliorated with good use of voice acting and cinematics.  There's still going to be plenty of text, of course.

But making RPGs slower and more text based is not considered a growth formula.

As far as I'm concerned, voice acting is icing on the cake. What really matters is the number of available options in dialogue. The reason they often reduce you down to three possible responses is because voice acting all of them would take forever. So if given a choice between a lot of options with text and a couple options with voice acting, I would much prefer text.

Also, a problem with a voice-acted main character that is meant to be a reflection of the player is that there's no way the actor can say every line in the tone the player wants. Ever tried to play a middle-of-the-road Hawke?

Peasant: Oh thank the Maker! Help me Champion, my daughter has been kidnapped!

Hawke: Well I could never refuse to help a damsel in distress

Peasant: Oh thank goodness, the ruffians are holed-up in that building over there.

Hawke: I WILL SLAUGHTER THE INGRATES AND MOUNT THEIR HEADS UPON MY MANTLE

Peasant: Uh...ok, well just be sure to bring my daughter back safe please

Hawke: Do not worry, my friend. I swear on my life that no harm will befall your daughter

Peasant: Oh thank you, Champion! Oh, but one more thing, I am but a poor farmer and I won't be able to reward you for this aid

Hawke: DIE, YOU FREELOADING WORM *kills peasant*

It's a bit on the MPD side.

As far as DA:O's combat being slow and awkward, had they just made attacking as fluid as they did in DA2 and threw in more cross-class combos, it's have been damn-near perfect.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That is not related to the
discussion that I was having, at which point someone said games like
Skyrim are successful because they are non-linear, and gamers today
don't like linear games. In fact, he cited linearity as being why other
(non-BioWare) games are not successful.

If I could guess, I think his meaning was that other RPGs aren't successful due to their linearity, not any and all other games.

Modifié par batlin, 08 juin 2012 - 04:47 .

[wsandista]

batlin wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

And I think you are splitting hairs.  The idea behind both statements is the same.  Granted, they skyrim guy has it easier, because Skyrim really only has RPG elements rather than being a full RPG.

Exqueeze me? You're saying Skyrim isn't an RPG? TES is pretty much the gold standard in terms of player freedom and expression, so I can't see how anyone could call DA an RPG and Skyrim not.

Extreme Anti-TES bias?

As far as DA:O's combat being slow and awkward, had they just made attacking as fluid as they did in DA2 and threw in more cross-class combos, it's have been damn-near perfect.

While I agree DAO combat could have been a bit faster and more fluid, DA2 overkilled combat speed and made it seem more like a beat 'em up game than a tactical realtime with pause RPG, IMO.

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...

Extreme Anti-TES bias?

I don't like open world games because they invariably give you a colorless character who wanders around interacting with mostly colorless NPCs.   Yes, I can create tons of "head canon" about it all, but I can do that much better writing my own stories.

Yes, there's a lot of freedom.  But there's no *role*.  There's just the *play*.  Any role you invent for the character is purely imaginary.  No one in the world notices it or reacts to it.  The world is nearly as static as an MMO.   The lack of a good story or any serious character interaction other than quest giving just gets boring really quick.

I don't like the game mechanics, either, but that's not germane to the point.

[Provi-dance]

wsandista wrote...

While I agree DAO combat could have been a bit faster and more fluid, DA2 overkilled combat speed and made it seem more like a beat 'em up game than a tactical realtime with pause RPG, IMO.

DAO's combat speed is just fine. It should've been even slower, IMO. I like it when there's a pause after each blow, it gives "weight" to combat, as if the combatant is evaluating his next move instead of comically waving his arms at the speed of light.

[wsandista]

Vormaerin wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Extreme Anti-TES bias?

I don't like open world games because they invariably give you a colorless character who wanders around interacting with mostly colorless NPCs.   Yes, I can create tons of "head canon" about it all, but I can do that much better writing my own stories.

Yes, there's a lot of freedom.  But there's no *role*.  There's just the *play*.  Any role you invent for the character is purely imaginary.  No one in the world notices it or reacts to it.  The world is nearly as static as an MMO.   The lack of a good story or any serious character interaction other than quest giving just gets boring really quick.

I don't like the game mechanics, either, but that's not germane to the point.

You say yourself that you don't like the type of game TES is, that is biased.

I don't like DA2, does that mean DA2 isn't a role-playing game? You don't interact with NPCs, a pre-colored character does.

Provi-dance wrote...
DAO's combat speed is just fine. It should've been even slower, IMO. I like it when there's a pause after each blow, it gives "weight" to combat, as if the combatant is evaluating his next move instead of comically waving his arms at the speed of light.

I disagree, I think multiplying the speed by a factor of .9 or .8 would be much better. Two-Handed attacks were too slow.

Modifié par wsandista, 08 juin 2012 - 05:18 .