764 réponses à ce sujet

[joshko]

Cantina wrote...


Wait a second here…<blinks> did I just see what I saw.

<Reads again> Yep, sure did.

To see a person from their own company come out and say, they enjoyed another game aside from one they were apart of is just…damn. Begs me to wonder how Bioware can promote a game like Dragon Age when one of their own does not even stand behind it and finds another game far more appealing.

You do know that Bioware employees are allowed to like games from a different company right?

[Realmzmaster]

PC Gamer magazine often asks developers from different companies what they are playing. It is not surprising that developers play and enjoy each other's games. It is a great way to see what the competition is doing and at the same time have some fun. Also you never know where you might steal an idea.

[ElitePinecone]

batlin wrote...

I think I need to clarify what I meant by "wider audience"

Does Bioware still want Call of Duty's audience like Fernando Melo said, or are they actually going to use their classic RPG to appeal to classic RPG fans?

There's probably a lesson about clarity of communications here somewhere, but Melo never said they specifically wanted CoD's audience. 

He said RPGs had the potential to reach an audience the size of Call of Duty, given that there are millions of people playing games who use RPG-esque systems but don't realise it. 

"They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience."

I find Melo's reasoning strange and unconvincing, but at the same time his comments have been crazily misrepresented by people who run around the internet screaming about Bioware dumbing down DA2 for a wider/CoD audience.

Clearly, the plan to attract a bigger audience for DA2 didn't really work - and I'd hope that the devs expand on whatever it was that made DAO attractive to 4-5 million people, rather than seeking a mythical other audience. 

[wsandista]

ElitePinecone wrote...

batlin wrote...

I think I need to clarify what I meant by "wider audience"

Does Bioware still want Call of Duty's audience like Fernando Melo said, or are they actually going to use their classic RPG to appeal to classic RPG fans?

There's probably a lesson about clarity of communications here somewhere, but Melo never said they specifically wanted CoD's audience. 

He said RPGs had the potential to reach an audience the size of Call of Duty, given that there are millions of people playing games who use RPG-esque systems but don't realise it. 

"They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience."

I find Melo's reasoning strange and unconvincing, but at the same time his comments have been crazily misrepresented by people who run around the internet screaming about Bioware dumbing down DA2 for a wider/CoD audience.

Clearly, the plan to attract a bigger audience for DA2 didn't really work - and I'd hope that the devs expand on whatever it was that made DAO attractive to 4-5 million people, rather than seeking a mythical other audience. 

I find his reasoning quite flawed, just leveling up doesn't necessarily make a game a RPG, role-playing makes a game a RPG.

DA2 was dumbed down to appeal more to those who wanted more action, but less tactics and role-playing.

Honestly, RPGs(especially those that are D&D style) will never have the broad appeal shooters have. It will never happen.

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...

I find his reasoning quite flawed, just leveling up doesn't necessarily make a game a RPG, role-playing makes a game a RPG.

DA2 was dumbed down to appeal more to those who wanted more action, but less tactics and role-playing.

Honestly, RPGs(especially those that are D&D style) will never have the broad appeal shooters have. It will never happen.

1)  To computer game companies, Diablo is an RPG.  The idea of convincing people to go from action with character building and minor conversation to a game with actual decisions and RP in those conversations is not completely insane.

2) It wasn't dumbed down at all.  Just because you don't like the changes doesn't make it "dumbed down."

3) Why?  Because you said so?   Pretty sure everyone said an MMO could never have WoW like membership back in the day, too.   


There is one thing that is going to clash between your sort of RPer and this potential new audience.   You want to constantly stop and read line after line of dialogue and then chose it and so on.   That's a turn off for many.   But its not insurmountable.   Voice acted main characters and paraphrased dialogue choices can eliminate the biggest hurdle to that section of the population.

[ashwind]

wsandista wrote...

I find his reasoning quite flawed, just leveling up doesn't necessarily make a game a RPG, role-playing makes a game a RPG.

DA2 was dumbed down to appeal more to those who wanted more action, but less tactics and role-playing.

Honestly, RPGs(especially those that are D&D style) will never have the broad appeal shooters have. It will never happen.

Problem is, "Role-Playing" holds a slightly; if not vastly different definition amongst players. For example: I find micro-managing companions; ie deciding what they wear and how they level up to be anti-RP. But for others, somehow being able to micro-manage every single aspect of every companion is one of the pillars of RPG.

Yes, DA2 is somewhat dumb down but I do not believe that it is because of action. There isnt much action in DA2 to be honest. Press a button and your character; nay not your character, it is actually the character you are controlling respond with a flamboyant animation. Many games like to create the illusion of being "action-pack" by associating brainless button meshing with flamboyant animations and that is simply wrong.

Game developers will always want to grab a wider audience and there is nothing wrong with it. There are generally 2 ways to go about doing that:

1. Blindly implementing everything that is label "cool & awesome" and hope it appeals to most of the players. Sacrificing identity, creativity and dignity in the process for easy gain. It is like going to work everyday and produce what your boss needs from you but never what your boss wants from you.

2. Create something with personality and hope to draw even players that generally does not like that certain type of game to play it. Players do not know what they want, players do not want to know what they want. they want to be pleasantly surprised. Kinda like... umm.. Steve Jobs, who make products with personality and win over his customers not by sucking up to them but showing them something special? You love him or you hate him but you cant ignore him. 

[wsandista]

Vormaerin wrote...

1)  To computer game companies, Diablo is an RPG.  The idea of convincing people to go from action with character building and minor conversation to a game with actual decisions and RP in those conversations is not completely insane.

It is insane when they do not want to RP. Like I have said many times, leveling-up doesn't make a game an RPG. Not every consumer wants a game where they RP, some just want to kill sh!t.

2) It wasn't dumbed down at all.  Just because you don't like the changes doesn't make it "dumbed down."

Armor penetration was removed. Stats were simplified. Damage equations were all the same. Non-combat skills were removed. Dialogue options were labeled. Companion armor customization was removed. How was it not "dumbed down" when several features were gutted, especially when said features made the game more complex?

3) Why?  Because you said so?   Pretty sure everyone said an MMO could never have WoW like membership back in the day, too.

Shooters have the largest audience in the video-game industry. They might not sell as many units as WoW, but shooters compete in a much more crowded market than RPGs, or almost any genre except adventure games.

There is one thing that is going to clash between your sort of RPer and this potential new audience.   You want to constantly stop and read line after line of dialogue and then chose it and so on.   That's a turn off for many.   But its not insurmountable.   Voice acted main characters and paraphrased dialogue choices can eliminate the biggest hurdle to that section of the population.

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ashwind wrote...

Problem is, "Role-Playing" holds a slightly; if not vastly different definition amongst players. For example: I find micro-managing companions; ie deciding what they wear and how they level up to be anti-RP. But for others, somehow being able to micro-manage every single aspect of every companion is one of the pillars of RPG.

The difference there is that you only want to play one character, while some of us want to play all of the characters.

Roleplaying is in-character decision-making.  Roleplaying is seeing the game world through your character's eyes rather than your own.  If you think micro-managing companions in anti-RP, then you're saying you want to see the world through only your PC's eyes, and having that much control over your companions damages your immersion into that one character.

but some of us think that being able to control them in combat already breaks that, so instead we play all of the characters simultaneously, and that requires micromanagement.

2. Create something with personality and hope to draw even players that generally does not like that certain type of game to play it. Players do not know what they want, players do not want to know what they want. they want to be pleasantly surprised.

Some of us do know what we want.

Kinda like... umm.. Steve Jobs, who make products with personality and win over his customers not by sucking up to them but showing them something special? You love him or you hate him but you cant ignore him.

I can try.

As far as I can tell, I own one product inspired by an Apple product.  That's Microsoft Windows, and I resisted even that when it came along because I did not see the value in a graphical interface for my operating system.  I still don't.  I have no idea why this is seen as valuable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

PS:T was a brilliant game BTW I can see why people like it. It is one of the few games with a set protagonist that I enjoyed.

I don't think it had a set protagonist in any way that matters to roleplaying.  And I agree it was brilliant.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 juin 2012 - 04:30 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Wait a second here…<blinks> did I just see what I saw.

<Reads again> Yep, sure did.

To see a person from their own company come out and say, they enjoyed another game aside from one they were apart of is just…damn. Begs me to wonder how Bioware can promote a game like Dragon Age when one of their own does not even stand behind it and finds another game far more appealing.

I'm very confused.

At what point do I give any indication that I'm not standing behind Dragon Age?  I'm also not sure why working at BioWare would require my favourite game to be made by the company that I work for.

Indeed.  If you go out and ask any author who their favorite author is, they won't say "me!"  (They're likely to have dozens of favorites).  I think it'd be weird in the extreme to consider your own work your favorite because your experience of it is so radically different from the books/games/movies/whatever where you're only involved with the end-product.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

PS:T was a brilliant game BTW I can see why people like it. It is one of the few games with a set protagonist that I enjoyed.

I don't think it had a set protagonist in any way that matters to roleplaying.  And I agree it was brilliant.

You mean, apart from being MALE?

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

PS:T was a brilliant game BTW I can see why people like it. It is one of the few games with a set protagonist that I enjoyed.

I don't think it had a set protagonist in any way that matters to roleplaying.

True I could roleplay The Nameless One anyway I wanted since he was technically a new person, but he was still set in his appearance and gender. Still quite a few steps ahead of almost any other set protagonist in terms of player agency.

 

And I agree it was brilliant.

I have yet to find anyone who has played the game to say otherwise.

[batlin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

batlin wrote...

Just curious, I hadn't seen any news about it in E3.

Well, they are keeping voiced protagonist, the "paraphrasing," the auto-lines, the companions with their "distinct" attire, and it will be in the vein of Dragon Age II... I guess it will appeal to people who liked Dragon Age 2.

So in other words, roughly 400,000 people, give or take 100,000.

[Allan Schumacher]

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

What exactly does it mean to roleplay a character?

[joshko]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

What exactly does it mean to roleplay a character?

Ah Allan you sly dog!

I think it's not so much that they don't want to RP a character it's to what extent do they want to.

A die hard RP player will have no problem being forced to sleep at night and eat three times a day, but any one else probably wouldn't find that pleasent.

But that does not mean that any one else would not enjoy the more relaxed, and "fun" I suppose you could put it, forms of RPing (such as how you look or whether you want your one hander to be two or three times bigger than your body.)

[Allan Schumacher]

joshko wrote...

Ah Allan you sly dog!

I think it's not so much that they don't want to RP a character it's to what extent do they want to.

A die hard RP player will have no problem being forced to sleep at night and eat three times a day, but any one else probably wouldn't find that pleasent.

But that does not mean that any one else would not enjoy the more relaxed, and "fun" I suppose you could put it, forms of RPing (such as how you look or whether you want your one hander to be two or three times bigger than your body.)

Well, depending on what people mean by it, does a game like Baldur's Gate really require one to "roleplay" the game to enjoy it.  Same with a game like Planescape: Torment.  If you like reading (and can tolerate questionable combat...) it has a fantastic story.

[joshko]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

joshko wrote...

Ah Allan you sly dog!

I think it's not so much that they don't want to RP a character it's to what extent do they want to.

A die hard RP player will have no problem being forced to sleep at night and eat three times a day, but any one else probably wouldn't find that pleasent.

But that does not mean that any one else would not enjoy the more relaxed, and "fun" I suppose you could put it, forms of RPing (such as how you look or whether you want your one hander to be two or three times bigger than your body.)

Well, depending on what people mean by it, does a game like Baldur's Gate really require one to "roleplay" the game to enjoy it.  Same with a game like Planescape: Torment.  If you like reading (and can tolerate questionable combat...) it has a fantastic story.

Well if you want to get super techincle the only true way to role play is to LARP .

Modifié par joshko, 06 juin 2012 - 05:58 .

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

And you assume that they do not. When a person plays COD they assume the role of a soldier in a team especially if it is multiplayer. So yes the players are role playing since the player can assume the role of a soldier in the British, American, Soviet, Polish canadain or French Resistance. Depending on the army the game plays differently.  Each soldier on the team has his/her role to play from recon to point man. COD has evolved becoming more than just a shooter. The COD games simulate infantry and combined arms warfare. It is a coordinated effort between team members. 

With 40 million active players per month across all of the COD titles I think it is far more than just a shooter.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 06:02 .

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

What exactly does it mean to roleplay a character?

Which would bring us back to the definition of role playing? The question that has no definitive answer. Each individual person may have their definition of what constitutes role playing and none need be in agreement with the other.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

What exactly does it mean to roleplay a character?

Hmm.. This is sensitive and very subjective issue. 

For me it mean to assume to be a character, at it most basic definition.

The role is usually defined by Game Master but it can also be left open. A character can be pre-defined by Game Master but it can be also be left open for the player themselves.  Whether the game require a player to pretend to be a predefined character or open, the player must assume their character properly as deem as the narrative or the world they're based on. It mean the player should view the world, to think and to feel as the character. If the player are supposed to roleplay as Hawke then the player is assume to think, feel and view as Hawke - and I can't do that if the character automatically:

1. ) talks on his own 
2.) emotes on his own 
3.) motivate on his own. 
 
 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 juin 2012 - 06:13 .

[ashwind]

Tesclo wrote...

ashwind wrote...

2. Create something with personality and hope to draw even players that generally does not like that certain type of game to play it. Players do not know what they want, players do not want to know what they want. they want to be pleasantly surprised. Kinda like... umm.. Steve Jobs, who make products with personality and win over his customers not by sucking up to them but showing them something special? You love him or you hate him but you cant ignore him. 

Please do not ever mention the name Steve Jobs again. Steve Jobs did not make products with personality. Steve Jobs made products with asian slave labor because he was too damn cheap to pay an American a decent wage. I hope Steve Jobs, the billionaire and slaver that couldn't even donate a single penny to a charity on his death bed is burning in hell.

/rant

See, you hate him. Hate is an emotion. Love him, hate him but you cant ignore him.  

p/s: Product with personality does not have to be "good" or "bad" nor does it imply "good" or "bad" in anyway. More like a product that carries the DNA of its crafter. I am not claiming that iPad/iPhone is good or bad, just saying that when you look at them, you can see Mr. Jobs DNA in it

[Realmzmaster]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Again you assume that action fans WANT to RP a character at all. Many do not want to RP a character. Also please do not tell me what I want to do. I know what I want in a game much more than you do.

What exactly does it mean to roleplay a character?

Hmm.. This is sensitive and very subjective issue. 

For me it mean to assume to be a character, at it most basic definition.

The role is usually defined by Game Master but it can also be left open. A character can be pre-defined by Game Master but it can be also be left open for the player themselves.  Whether the game require a player to pretend to be a predefined character or open, the player must assume their character properly as deem as the narrative or the world they're based on. It mean the player must view the world, to think and to feel as the character. If the character are suppose to roleplay as Hawke then the player is assume to think, feel and view as Hawke - and I can't do that if the character automatically:

1. ) talk on his own
2.) emote on his own
3.) motivated on his own. 
 
 

Given what you have said then a gamer assuming the role of a soldier in a COD game would be role playing especially if in multiplayer. Since the person playing the role would meet your three qualifications even in single player.