89 réponses à ce sujet

[Cimeas]

bEVEsthda wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...



Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans".

....what?

*sigh*

I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand. I'd rather have a party of 6 than fast, action'ish combat. I'd also rather see bigger battles, more adversaries, more allies. I am convinced the reduction is for performance and handling  reasons.

Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I just get so frustrated when people think that 'action' combat cannot be tactical.  Tactical just means there are different ways to 'win' a situation, whether by flanking, stealth, CC, AOE, whatever it is in your particular game.  I think that having to actually aim would ADD a tactical element, rather than just click-to-aim auto-target that you get in DA:O/DA2/MMOs.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm surprised this conversation hasn't elicited any Matthew Fox/Jennifer Love Hewitt/Lacey Chabert comments as of yet.

This was a Party of Five reference.




...anyone? 

Alright, I'm by myself on this one.




Back to the topic at hand, I think Bioware would be able to tell more interesting stories if the full cast went along everywhere for every mission. Whether that would work with combat, I couldn't say (although, again, I'll throw out the option of only having control of the main character as a possible solution to making this doable). 

In ME2, for example, we had fights break out between the companions that you had to resolve. What if these took place during an actual quest/mission? Or the actions you did previously caused things to bubble over when you returned to camp? This wouldn't be writing that would be done if there was only a remote chance you would have, say, Wynne and Leliana (two companions who obviously have very different views on the Chantry) together, but if it is assumed everyone is with you, then this would be an interesting way to develop these relationships. 

As is, with only two or three spots available in your party, Bioware pretty much can't assume that you will ever have two characters in your party in a way that would require anything beyond just party banter. This way, you can experiment with taking different companions sides in arguments upon subsequent playthroughs, or further spuring the two on to develop their own rivalry, which could enhance their competition with each other.

Just an idea. A lot more ideas really become possible if you make all of your companions available for every interaction, location, conversation and quest. There's no more sweeping things under the rug with rotating your companions out to have them avoid seeing you doing something they might not like.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

I've never had a problem for 4 party teams, but six does seem to be ideal for a lot of things. I myself play D&D (am a Dungeon Master even ^^), and sometimes our groups grew way bigger than that. But then the story has to get watered down and there's less character development. And I've been in a party of two before, which was quite interesting. But... I think 4-6 is ideal, maybe with games like DA though, have a good range of potential NPCs to choose from for your small party. (Like 10-12?)

[Arius23]

I don't mind having only 3 companions on regular missions, but I wish there were more large-scale battles with all of the companions similar to the end-game of DA2.

Also, all of the companions together and interacting with each other in more scenes would be great to see how they play off of one another.

[Fast Jimmy]

Cimeas wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...



Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans".

....what?

*sigh*

I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand. I'd rather have a party of 6 than fast, action'ish combat. I'd also rather see bigger battles, more adversaries, more allies. I am convinced the reduction is for performance and handling  reasons.

Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I just get so frustrated when people think that 'action' combat cannot be tactical.  Tactical just means there are different ways to 'win' a situation, whether by flanking, stealth, CC, AOE, whatever it is in your particular game.  I think that having to actually aim would ADD a tactical element, rather than just click-to-aim auto-target that you get in DA:O/DA2/MMOs.

Multiple ways to win is not neccessarily tactical. Kratos has multiple weapons and magic, which lend themselves to different play styles. That doesn't make God of War an inherently tactical game. 

I'd say if enemies have different tactics, strategies or strengths themselves that make you take different approaches based on who you are fighting, the terrain and who your companions are, then that is tactical. You could have an entire party of archers and still be a tactical game if it matters where you place your archers, what enemies you have them aim for first, etc. In fact, this is precisely what a lot of Tower Defense games, which are by their very definition tactical games, are like.

So... requiring different tactics makes a game tactical. Spamming an AOE attack or spamming Mark of Death is still just spamming enemies with large hit points. 

Knowing your AOE spell will only work if you have the advantage of being on the high ground or far enough away from the enemies, and knowing that if you are in close quarters would require you to use a faster spell, or one that wouldn't damage your allies, is tactics. Deciding whether to spam Firestorm or Fist of the Maker, since both a lot of damage to enemies in an area, isn't. 

[MichaelStuart]

I would prefer to be able to take all my companions with me, or at lest be giving a reason why they can't come along.

[Androme]

I think 6 sounds fine. (As in, PC + 5)

[Xerxes52]

I'm fine with having a party of four, but I wouldn't mind bumping up the party limit to six, or even removing it altogether. I enjoyed those moments in DA:O and DA2 where your entire party shows up to fight.

[Cimeas]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...



Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans".

....what?

*sigh*

I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand. I'd rather have a party of 6 than fast, action'ish combat. I'd also rather see bigger battles, more adversaries, more allies. I am convinced the reduction is for performance and handling  reasons.

Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I just get so frustrated when people think that 'action' combat cannot be tactical.  Tactical just means there are different ways to 'win' a situation, whether by flanking, stealth, CC, AOE, whatever it is in your particular game.  I think that having to actually aim would ADD a tactical element, rather than just click-to-aim auto-target that you get in DA:O/DA2/MMOs.

Multiple ways to win is not neccessarily tactical. Kratos has multiple weapons and magic, which lend themselves to different play styles. That doesn't make God of War an inherently tactical game. 

I'd say if enemies have different tactics, strategies or strengths themselves that make you take different approaches based on who you are fighting, the terrain and who your companions are, then that is tactical. You could have an entire party of archers and still be a tactical game if it matters where you place your archers, what enemies you have them aim for first, etc. In fact, this is precisely what a lot of Tower Defense games, which are by their very definition tactical games, are like.

So... requiring different tactics makes a game tactical. Spamming an AOE attack or spamming Mark of Death is still just spamming enemies with large hit points. 

Knowing your AOE spell will only work if you have the advantage of being on the high ground or far enough away from the enemies, and knowing that if you are in close quarters would require you to use a faster spell, or one that wouldn't damage your allies, is tactics. Deciding whether to spam Firestorm or Fist of the Maker, since both a lot of damage to enemies in an area, isn't. 

sure, but the things you suggest could all be possible in a Mass Effect game, let alone a 'hack and slash' action RPG.    If I know that I have to attack X enemy from behind to whittle down his armor, so I send my rogue in behind him and attack with stealth, while keeping melee attackers from swarming him/her by casting Gravity Well or whatever it is in a different part of the map, while my tank keeps the boss' Golem minion at bay and the healer/debilitator debuffs the main boss while occasionally healing the party, that's tactics.    I'm not saying that's a fight in an action game, or in DA2, but the fact is all of that would be possible in a game where you have to aim attacks, hack and slash individually (not autoattack) etc...

[Direwolf0294]

From a story perspective I wouldn't mind bringing all my companions with me. That way I wouldn't miss any dialogue they may have and it makes sense because why would you recruit these people to your team just to have them sit around in your camp? From a gameplay perspective though I'm against it. If DA3 keeps DA:O and DA2's type of combat then with such a large party size the game's going to feel like a Dawn of War 2 style RTS and that's something I don't want. On the other hand if they make the combat more action oriented, which I doubt they'll do, then it's going to feel really cluttered having 6 - 10 NPCs running around and fighting with you in all encounters. I say they just leave it at 3 companions.

[Wolf]

If DA3 goes the "all-out war" way which seems to be the case, having a bigger party in certain situations would be good.

Having a good few battles akin to the Battle of Denerim or the DA2 endgame and then be able to control more than 4 party members would be ok by me. It would make sense story-wise and would add a new level of challenge to those particular fights and the game in general, while also allowing for pretty epic scenery and situations.

And while playing regularly (as in, not fighting on that larger scale), have the people that didn't come with you be left back home as if to "guard" or "tend" the camp or main base. Doing this could also open a bunch of sidequests such as:

We are told by X follower that while you were off with the party they went scouting with follower Y and picked up a lead on some bandits that may have information relevant to the main story (or some delicious character development), or a lead on some resources that might be helpful (which would add a unique way of getting special or rare equipment).

Back to the main point though, if it serves the story or makes the gameplay more interesting I'm all for it.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Cimeas wrote...

sure, but the things you suggest could all be possible in a Mass Effect game, let alone a 'hack and slash' action RPG.    If I know that I have to attack X enemy from behind to whittle down his armor, so I send my rogue in behind him and attack with stealth, while keeping melee attackers from swarming him/her by casting Gravity Well or whatever it is in a different part of the map, while my tank keeps the boss' Golem minion at bay and the healer/debilitator debuffs the main boss while occasionally healing the party, that's tactics.    I'm not saying that's a fight in an action game, or in DA2, but the fact is all of that would be possible in a game where you have to aim attacks, hack and slash individually (not autoattack) etc...

I consider Mass Effect 2 and 3 more tactical than DA2... or ME1, for that matter. Having different powers/skills do less/more damage depending on if the enemy has a barrier/armor/shields or just regular health, in addition to features such as the shiled pylons, the Cereberus engineers and other aspects of gameplay that made it important to identify targets and which skills to use at which time, and positioning you and your squadmates in certain places to optimize your chances, are very tactical gameplay features. More than your standard CoD "shoot, shoot, grenade, shoot" or your average action game like GoW "slash, hack, HP regain, slash." 

And the description you gave, about sending your rogue in sneak mode for a backstab, having your tank aggro the group, having your supporter buff and heal the group at large, that IS very tactical. And it sounds like a great game. I don't think DA2's combat had that. I'd love to see it in DA3. 

But we've gone off topic here pretty far. Adding more companions into each fight could make for some pretty shoddy tactics possibly, given that you'd have possibly three or four of each class fighting at the same time.

Then again, the way each companion's skills (in theory) were highlighted in DA2 could have made for a really rich mix. A rogue with a powerful ranged weapon punch (Varric), a rogue with a quick long ranged attack (Sebastian), and rogue with a stealth/dual wielding mechanic (Isabella), a sword-and-shield warrior that could act as a tank (Aveline), a 2H warrior that does crowd control and deals damage (Fenris), a healer/support mage (Anders), a heqavy damage dealer mage (Merril) an extra slot for Hawke (gives the party a dash of variety) and then the feature of a compliment sibling class for the first Act, to flesh the party out a bit until the rest of the companions were recruited...

...that could be a pretty well-balanced, tactical group. Now, if the Tactics were wired in a way to make it so you didn't have to micro-manage all of these companions minutely every second and they would work together and respond to enemies accordingly... that would be a pretty amazing and fun romp.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:23 .

[Sir JK]

A consequence of a bigger party that needs to be adressed is that of the huge numbers such a party would be able to pull off and the balancing needed to account for that. It's one of those ideas that sounds good until one analyzes it more thoroughly. If party size is increased, then the rest of the game's balance needs to follow suit. They need to inflate the stats and numbers of the opponents to match two additional party members or bring the individual party members way down.
If the only thing in the combat system that undergoes a dramatic change is the party size, then we'd also have to play through either far larger encounters or considerably more gimmicky encounters (á la the Rock Wraith).

Couple with the expectation that you will have two of every class. That will lead to the enemy producing a lot more damage much quicker (to account for increased healing or increased firepower).

Not to mention that combat is primarily ability based and more manpower will lead to much greater ability to deploy them (which is much more powerful than the numbers suggest) which in turn will skew the power curve.

Basically, it's entirely possible that a larger party will in fact make things much less tactical, since the increased firepower will either lead to many standard encounters being a breeze to go through or make fights long, gimmicky and repetetive.
If we want a larger party to be even plausible, then we must also ask for the entire combat system to be retooled from the ground up. Ensure that it's not the number of abilities deployed per combat that is the primary fundament of the combat system.

[FedericoV]

Tokion wrote...

In DA3, will we still be limited to a party of 4 + summons? Do you guys think it is sufficient to make combat tactical?

What about swapping out party members anytime during your adventure? TBH I disliked that system and much prefered the Baldur's Gate system were you can really build up your relationship with the people you are travelling with, as well as planning your party with characters that synergizes well with each other. Swapping out members breaks that immersion.

With the current camera fixed in 3rd person, the actiony/quick nature of the combat and the absence of the "classical" semi turn based system of BG, playing a party of more than 4 members would not be enjoyable at all.  Moreover, with the gameplay/rule system focused solely on combat and the "limitation" to three classes, there is not a lot of need for a larger party..

Honestly, considering the kind of game experience Bioware wants to create, I would remove party combat and all the MMO element of the rule system, going directly in the "ME with swords" route. In that way you would be free to choose the charachters based on your preference and not because of abstracted game balance issues (moreover, Bioware would be more free to create the charachters that fits the story). Mind, I would prefer a return to DA:O's system but it would be a better solution than DA2 compromise.

While if they stick with DA2 compromise, I would seriously consider the option to create a dedicate healer/buffer/debuffer class. Imho, the mmo-ish gameplay of the DA franchise result a lot worst because of the lack of that option.

Modifié par FedericoV, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:15 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Honestly, I think with Bioware, they likely don't want to have to account for every possible character being available at the same time during every conversation. I could be off base on that.

From hearing about how this actually works in the design process, they would probably LOVE it if ALL characters were available ALL the time.  They could plan EVERYTHING and never have to worry about whether somebody was or was not present.  This would be enormously easier than what they actually do.

I assumed they did 4 characters because there are 4 main party roles: Tank, CC, Healer, DPS. and this way no matter what you do you have room for SOMEBODY to fill all 4 of those roles.  Not to mention the secondary roles like Trapper.

There aren't really enough party roles in Dragon Age to justify having a larger party.  It's not like, say, a raid in the MMO I play, where the roster usually looks like this:

1.  Tank
2.  Off Tank
3.  Healer
4. Healer
5. Healer who thinks they're DPS (usually me)
6. Buffer/kiter/CC/oddjob person
7. DPS
8. DPS
9. DPS
10.  Trapper who doubles as DPS (me if 5 isn't me) 
11. Ranged DPS who pulls threat like a mofo
12. Person who gets one-shot (not me)

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I can only assume that not having your whole party with you in combat is either a system limitation or a perceived limitation of players not being able to manage that many characters.

They would have to be really dynamic with the difficulty settings. A player not used to managing 6+ characters might be overwhelmed. Even if you don't have to worry about controlling them like on DA2's Casual setting, having that many might seem a bit excessive on a lower difficulty. If it could be done so that the higher you go in difficulty the more character slots you are allowed, I could see this being very interesting. However, that goes to your next point...

Honestly, I think with Bioware, they likely don't want to have to account for every possible character being available at the same time during every conversation. I could be off base on that.

I do think that Bioware's more cinematic style would be problematic with too many characters. Already with a party of four there are conversation scenes with the PC in the foreground and the other three followers in the background, just standing there, waiting. Occasionally they might input a line here or there, but that is uncommon, and only relegated to usually a single follower in your current party (more than one follower who has something to say during a specific quest seems to get to talk based on a scale of importance/relevancy -- if both Fenris and Merrill are present, Merrill might get priority.)

schalafi wrote...

A party of 4 is enough for me to handle, what with upgrading armor, spells, tactics, etc. I don't want to spend half my time fussing with my npcs, I would rather have more interesting quests, more good banter, and of course more meaningful romances.

Perhaps it's my OCD kicking in, but I tend to manage the gear and skills of all companions, whether I use them or not. That way, they are always ready if I need them for something (like their personal quest in each act). Every couple of levels I go to Fenris's mansion and spend a while swapping out companions, leveling them, getting their skills and tactics in order, and equipping any new gear I might have gotten for them. Then I take all of the left over junk loot and go sell it.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Six companions, thats the way to go.

There is very little point when you only have 3 character classes.

I don't really see the point either. Currently, you can have a tank, a healer, and 2 DPS. Do we need a tank, a healer and 3 DPS, like the standard World of Warcraft 5-man dungeon party? Do we need 2 tanks, 2-3 healers, and 5-6 DPS like the WoW 10-man raid?

In other words: what is the point of so many additional people when there are only 3 classes, 2/3 of which have alternate roles. The only benefit would be so you can bring every possible combination of buff, debuff, and CCC. Devs don't actually like doing that with classes that have unique skills because then it becomes a requirement to bring this class or that spec just because of that skill alone, limiting player choice and freedom. It took Blizzard several years to understand this concept, but they finally did, and they work from the phrase "bring the player, not the class."

Also with characters being that much larger, six would crowed out the screen to the point of not being able to see what was going on.

This can be solved easily with my main desired feature: free camera movement (or zoom in/out, specifically)!! At the very least, if they increase the party size, they really should bring back the isometric camera.



Also, and this is a general comment, people are going to just have to get over the fact that game companies want new players, whether they are inexperienced or old pros. Game companies want their games to be played on a variety of platforms so they reach the most people. Really huge game companies like EA want it even more because they need it to justify the amount of dollars they put into the game development.

This isn't 1993 (Doom), 1999 (Everquest), 2000 (BG2), 2004 (World of Warcraft) anymore, when games required only MBs of RAM, were played by a majority young male audience who weren't afraid to crunch numbers with character stats, memorize enemy mob elemental resistance charts, or farm Diablo maps over and over again looking for awesome gear. Games are more socially acceptablle than ever before. Little old ladies fancy themselves gamers and knit faction banners while waiting for their battleground queue to pop.

Games are for everyone now. Game companies want to keep it that way to keep raking in the dough. You'll just have to accept it and move on.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:53 .

[nightscrawl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Regarding the topic itself, there are actually moments where I think having more people at your command should be used.

Like Redcliffe's night battle. If I've recruited everyone, being arbitrarily restricted into who is fighting the corpses and who isn't seems.... well... silly. Why can't I have everyone fighting with me? Why can't I have Wynne, Oghren, Shale, Zevran, Sten, Leliana, Dog, Alistair, and myself all taking part in the battle?

Not so much commanding them all in the same area, but at least being able to use them all and actually set up a better strategy.

Warden: Wynne, I want you to assist the militia by keeping their wounds healed. Shale, I want you to stay up on the hillside path, crushing the skulls of the corpses"

Shale: What fun! I'd love to squish their putrid heads!

I mean, the battle of Denerim started off well enough like that. You had all of your companions, Riordan, and some soldiers assisting you in battle. And Dragon Age II had this during the endgame.

Even if we're still restricted to a party of four, there should be moments where I can definitely command all of my companions to do strategic stuff.

I've thought this also. The final battles in DA2 were irksome in this way. Even though you have Hawke doing as you say: "Varric, keep at a distance and use your crossbow," (I mean really, what else is he going to use?) it seems a bit silly to just pick 3 followers and have to stick with those 3 until the end of the game, even though they are all right there.

All the rest of the time in DA2 you can imagine that the rest of your non-party members are just doing their thing in Kirkwall while you're doing... whatever, beating in Tal-Vashoth heads on the Wounded Coast.

[Cimeas]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

snip

I consider Mass Effect 2 and 3 more tactical than DA2... or ME1, for that matter. Having different powers/skills do less/more damage depending on if the enemy has a barrier/armor/shields or just regular health, in addition to features such as the shiled pylons, the Cereberus engineers and other aspects of gameplay that made it important to identify targets and which skills to use at which time, and positioning you and your squadmates in certain places to optimize your chances, are very tactical gameplay features. More than your standard CoD "shoot, shoot, grenade, shoot" or your average action game like GoW "slash, hack, HP regain, slash." 

And the description you gave, about sending your rogue in sneak mode for a backstab, having your tank aggro the group, having your supporter buff and heal the group at large, that IS very tactical. And it sounds like a great game. I don't think DA2's combat had that. I'd love to see it in DA3. 

But we've gone off topic here pretty far. Adding more companions into each fight could make for some pretty shoddy tactics possibly, given that you'd have possibly three or four of each class fighting at the same time.

Then again, the way each companion's skills (in theory) were highlighted in DA2 could have made for a really rich mix. A rogue with a powerful ranged weapon punch (Varric), a rogue with a quick long ranged attack (Sebastian), and rogue with a stealth/dual wielding mechanic (Isabella), a sword-and-shield warrior that could act as a tank (Aveline), a 2H warrior that does crowd control and deals damage (Fenris), a healer/support mage (Anders), a heqavy damage dealer mage (Merril) an extra slot for Hawke (gives the party a dash of variety) and then the feature of a compliment sibling class for the first Act, to flesh the party out a bit until the rest of the companions were recruited...

...that could be a pretty well-balanced, tactical group. Now, if the Tactics were wired in a way to make it so you didn't have to micro-manage all of these companions minutely every second and they would work together and respond to enemies accordingly... that would be a pretty amazing and fun romp.

Absolutely, what annoyed me in DA2 is that the AOEs went from being insanely powerful storms of damagar (like Inferno or Tempest) that could kill the enemy *or* your own party if you weren't careful, to being not powerful at all and having no risk to your party.

In DA:O I actually occassionally sacrificed characters who couldn't get out of the way in time to destroy multiple enemies.   Difficult choices should be prevalent not just in conversation, but in gameplay too.

Actually that reminds me of a great idea I had.   What if, everytime they were healed for certain amounts of health, or absorbed damage as a tank, or did damage as a DPS, your companions reputation went up?   And if you let them die, it went down?   It would add a whole new meaning to difficulty settings, though it would be tough to balance.

Honestly, with tactics in DA2, I only really switched party members to heal me/Isabela, I didn't play with the whole team as much as DA:O because companion AI either improved, or i just became better at using the tactics screen.

[Arthur Cousland]

DA3 would have to be a more tactical game for having a 6 person party to feel needed.

Sure, mmorpgs and other games make use of 6+person parties, but those usually consist of multiple tanks, healers, crowd control, support, puller, etc. Dragon Age doesn't require much strategy in combat, and so more than 4 people in the party would feel like excess.

I wouldn't mind having a party of 6 or more people at once, but it's not something that the franchise desperately needs or anything.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

I suppose having a bigger squad would encourage me to use different companions. I tend to pick my favourite team and leave everyone else behind, then cry when it comes to a companion quest and I realise I'll have to leave my beloved Aveline behind so that Fenris can come along.

[AkiKishi]

Tactics come from restrictions not the number of units in the battle. This is from Rainbow Moon where you have an active party of 3 (6 total).

There are a total of six different weapon types in Rainbow Moon: Swords, bows, lances, slingshots, axes and staffs. Each of your characters as well as each monster type is equipped with one of these weapons

Going up against something with the advantage weapon will usually result in a very quick death. Characters also have a stat called "Bias" on a scale of magical to physical. Magical things inflict more damage on physical and vice versa but take and inflict less damage from the same bias.Your mage types will destroy fighter types from range, but if the fighter types get close mage becomes a pancake.

While DA mages are "squishy" in reality they have spells that can completely offset that anyway. Everything blends together.Whether you had 4 or 40 it would be the same.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 juillet 2012 - 03:36 .

[Zanallen]

I don't see why any arbitrary number of party members is better than another. The only time six is unequivocally better than 4 is in Suikoden and that is because you have 108 characters in those games (Though only around 70 or so are fighters).

[mopotter]

Actually, I'd like the option to pick how many I take with me no matter what the total number is that I can pick.

I liked being able to take 1 person with me if I wanted to, or all of them whatever limit they put in. I did like the way DA2 let me assumed whoever I didn't take was at their home doing something or at the tavern.

But I would also like to see different team members doing things together. The camp at DA:O was easy to keep track of them and go around in a circle taking to them, but DA:2 was a bit more interesting when I would go somewhere and they were talking with one another. Going to the tavern and seeing them play cards would have been a nice touch.

[Fast Jimmy]

nightscrawl wrote...

Also, and this is a general comment, people are going to just have to get over the fact that game companies want new players, whether they are inexperienced or old pros. Game companies want their games to be played on a variety of platforms so they reach the most people. Really huge game companies like EA want it even more because they need it to justify the amount of dollars they put into the game development.

This isn't 1993 (Doom), 1999 (Everquest), 2000 (BG2), 2004 (World of Warcraft) anymore, when games required only MBs of RAM, were played by a majority young male audience who weren't afraid to crunch numbers with character stats, memorize enemy mob elemental resistance charts, or farm Diablo maps over and over again looking for awesome gear. Games are more socially acceptablle than ever before. Little old ladies fancy themselves gamers and knit faction banners while waiting for their battleground queue to pop.

Games are for everyone now. Game companies want to keep it that way to keep raking in the dough. You'll just have to accept it and move on.

I know this was only meant as an aside, but I thought I'd address it specifically. This type of argument, that gaming is for everyone, including old ladies, and should be simplified is as flimsy as water and holds water about as well.

First, old ladies are viciously brutal gamers. Leave your Wii for a month with your grandma, she'll KILL you in some Wii Bowling next time you swing by.

Secondly (and more seriosuly), simplicity does not equal broad entertainment. Some of the oldest, most successful and widely popular type of games in the history of mankind are extremely complex and require in-depth strategy, such as chess, and also require juggling numbers, probability and statistics, like Blackjack or Poker. Similarly, video games that are inherently "complex" are not stigmas of the gaming world. 

As much as people love to knock shooters like Call of Duty, it does require a good degree of tactics, whether you want to approach it from a camping mentality, laying claymores and lobbing grenades at any who cross into your area, or by remaining light and lean, moving around the map and making surgical strikes. Similarly, Skyrim's equipment system has base stats which are then modified by your skill level, and cna be further improved on by crafting elements such as smithing or enchanting, where deciding which properties involves "crunching numbers" by the player.

The point being that making a game that forces you to play like the designer's think the player is stupid is wrong. Sure, you'll get lots of people who are inexperienced playing your game and that is why you have a learning curve, where the system mechanics are able to be either explained or discovered without requiring you to take notes or write a thesis. If I play a game that is designed to be played by someone who has never touched a video game before, such as Angry Birds, I usually lose interest in an amazing amount of time. Yet many, many people had never played any sort of video game before until hopping onto World of Warcraft and can now level grind and go on instances with the best of them. 

Assuming every system for a game that you create can't have complexity for fear of scaring of the primitive cave man non-gamers of the world instead of treating them as intelligent people who just have no expereince, but can be taught something in a logical and fun manner, is a recipe for disaster. Don't assume people are stupid - its one of the biggest follies you can make in life.

[Fallstar]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I know this was only meant as an aside, but I thought I'd address it specifically. This type of argument, that gaming is for everyone, including old ladies, and should be simplified is as flimsy as water and holds water about as well.

First, old ladies are viciously brutal gamers. Leave your Wii for a month with your grandma, she'll KILL you in some Wii Bowling next time you swing by.

Secondly (and more seriosuly), simplicity does not equal broad entertainment. Some of the oldest, most successful and widely popular type of games in the history of mankind are extremely complex and require in-depth strategy, such as chess, and also require juggling numbers, probability and statistics, like Blackjack or Poker. Similarly, video games that are inherently "complex" are not stigmas of the gaming world. 

As much as people love to knock shooters like Call of Duty, it does require a good degree of tactics, whether you want to approach it from a camping mentality, laying claymores and lobbing grenades at any who cross into your area, or by remaining light and lean, moving around the map and making surgical strikes. Similarly, Skyrim's equipment system has base stats which are then modified by your skill level, and cna be further improved on by crafting elements such as smithing or enchanting, where deciding which properties involves "crunching numbers" by the player.

The point being that making a game that forces you to play like the designer's think the player is stupid is wrong. Sure, you'll get lots of people who are inexperienced playing your game and that is why you have a learning curve, where the system mechanics are able to be either explained or discovered without requiring you to take notes or write a thesis. If I play a game that is designed to be played by someone who has never touched a video game before, such as Angry Birds, I usually lose interest in an amazing amount of time. Yet many, many people had never played any sort of video game before until hopping onto World of Warcraft and can now level grind and go on instances with the best of them. 

Good point. I would also like to address the notion that Skyrim is a 'simple' rpg. Far from it. From a meta-gaming perspective, it is far more detailed than most imagine. The people on the thread 'Complete character design freedom' have spent hundreds of hours making that build, and it's taken seven maxed threads on the subject (last I checked, probably more now) to get that build to the point it's at now. Point is, the depth is there for people who want it.

Assuming every system for a game that you create can't have complexity for fear of scaring of the primitive cave man non-gamers of the world instead of treating them as intelligent people who just have no expereince, but can be taught something in a logical and fun manner, is a recipe for disaster. Don't assume people are stupid - its one of the biggest follies you can make in life.

Agreed here. Don't assume the 'wider audience' wants a simplified game.