219 réponses à ce sujet

[AshedMan]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
And no I haven't played them and I don't give a damn to. We don't live in 90s or early 2000-2003. We live in 2012.

Great games are timeless.  Your loss.  

[termokanden]

While The Witcher 2 is fine, it really is not the only good RPG out there nor is its style the only correct one.

The old Infinity engine games are fairly challenging by today's standards, but not in the modern sense where you need good aim or reflexes. It's purely down to your tactics. If they are not good enough, you lose.

Very few modern games have any real tactical combat going on. It is more twitch based, even with the ones that actually are challenging. It's a shame really.

I don't want every new game to be based on the exact same formula as Baldur's Gate, but I still wish more of them were turn-based or just more tactical in one way or another. I want a game that punishes me for poor thinking but not for missing a reflex.

Modifié par termokanden, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:12 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Gaming is dead = confirmed.

[Buddy McFlurry]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Gaming is dead = confirmed.

I don't think it's dead. It's much worse than before, but not dead yet, although some of its magic is gone.

Look at Dishonored for example. I still believe it's gonna be a great game. Then there's Watch Dogs, Remeber Me, X: Rebirth,....
Also new Hitman and Assassins Creed are looking good. I hope they keep the stealth gameplay.
And Deus Ex: HR was pretty damn good.

[Lord_Valandil]

Buddy McFlurry wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Gaming is dead = confirmed.

I don't think it's dead. It's much worse than before, but not dead yet, although some of its magic is gone.

Look at Dishonored for example. I still believe it's gonna be a great game. Then there's Watch Dogs, Remeber Me, X: Rebirth,....
Also new Hitman and Assassins Creed are looking good. I hope they keep the stealth gameplay.
And Deus Ex: HR was pretty damn good.

Agreed. I really, really loved Deus Ex: HR.
And those games you mention are looking really sweet.
The downside is that nowadays games are plagued with DRM, day one DLC, tacked-on multiplayer...
Some games can get away with it, like Assassin's Creed. That franchise really -didn't need- multiplayer, but it wasn't that bad in the end. But some others just don't need it, like Dead Space 2...and alas, the multiplayer was terrible. Some liked the MP in Mass Effect 3, I hated it...I still think the game didn't need that.
And the whole situation with Bethesda and their inability to give PS3 users the DLC...well, just goes to show that this model is quite broken. And to think Skyrim got almost every GOTY award.
I won't say something cliche like "Gaming in the old days was much better"...but I'm not liking the current direction.

[termokanden]

Gaming isn't dead. Even if no new good games are released (which I doubt) all the good old games are still around. I have been playing games for over 20 years and there are still good ones i have not tried yet.

Modifié par termokanden, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:41 .

[C9316]

Time for a second gaming crash?

[Lord_Valandil]

termokanden wrote...

Gaming isn't dead. Even if no new good games are released (which I doubt) all the good old games are still around. I have been playing games for over 20 years and there are still good ones i have not tried yet.

I know, I was just being a bit exaggerated.
But anyways, the fact that SP games are getting pushed towards extinction doesn't bring a smile to my face. Only metaphorical tears.

[Costin_Razvan]

termokanden wrote...

While The Witcher 2 is fine, it really is not the only good RPG out there nor is its style the only correct one.

The old Infinity engine games are fairly challenging by today's standards, but not in the modern sense where you need good aim or reflexes. It's purely down to your tactics. If they are not good enough, you lose.

Very few modern games have any real tactical combat going on. It is more twitch based, even with the ones that actually are challenging. It's a shame really.

I don't want every new game to be based on the exact same formula as Baldur's Gate, but I still wish more of them were turn-based or just more tactical in one way or another. I want a game that punishes me for poor thinking but not for missing a reflex.

You say that as if a game like TW2 or Dark Souls has no tactics required to be used in it. I have played some challenging turn-based games, like say King's Bounty on Impossible difficulty, and I can't say I was that challenged by it.

Addai: I was repplying to a post Brock made about stat based RPGs.

AshedMan:  Yeah my loss. I tried Fallout and BG and I couldn't get past the 10 mins of them, maybe it's because of the fact that I can't play a game that's so old or because I don't have the patience for it.

Honestly I also don't give a **** for Wasteland 2.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Logan Cloud wrote...

It's pretty narrow-minded to discount gaming as a whole because of this too. If you don't like MP, just don't play it. You can enjoy SP just fine without it.

In my honest opinion, a lot of you are acting like drama queens. Most games these days have MP anyway. It's nothing new.

And that argument is exactly what justifies this situation.
I'm not saying that MP shouldn't exist. It just shouldn't be on every freaking game.

It's like in some time someone says, "hey, we're not greenlighting games that don't have guns. So, every new game will have guns. If you don't like guns, then don't use them. It doesn't matter if it's a historical game or a racing game...don't you like cars and guns, or better still...cars with guns? Our intention is to appeal to everyone! We need COD sales numbers!!".

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:57 .

[Costin_Razvan]

That's your opinion, I don't disagree mind you but there are quite a good number of people who will for instance refuse to pay money for a game without MP.

[Lord_Valandil]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

That's your opinion, I don't disagree mind you but there are quite a good number of people who will for instance refuse to pay money for a game without MP.

Why, of course. I'm not posing like some kind of prophet or truth-sayer.
I know that some people are just looking for the MP experience, but -I repeat- I'm not saying multiplayer itself should disappear. It just shouldn't be on everygame.
Not every game needs it. Period. And like Lord Tywin would say, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
It's easy to say "Oh, you don't like it? Don't play it", which is true. But it's sad to see when time and resources go to waste with an unnecessary tacked-on MP.

Deus Ex: HR didn't need MP. The Witcher 2 didn't need it. The Silent Hill games work perfectly well without MP.
That's my point.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:05 .

[Buddy McFlurry]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Agreed. I really, really loved Deus Ex: HR.
And those games you mention are looking really sweet.
The downside is that nowadays games are plagued with DRM, day one DLC, tacked-on multiplayer...
Some games can get away with it, like Assassin's Creed. That franchise really -didn't need- multiplayer, but it wasn't that bad in the end. But some others just don't need it, like Dead Space 2...and alas, the multiplayer was terrible. Some liked the MP in Mass Effect 3, I hated it...I still think the game didn't need that.
And the whole situation with Bethesda and their inability to give PS3 users the DLC...well, just goes to show that this model is quite broken. And to think Skyrim got almost every GOTY award.
I won't say something cliche like "Gaming in the old days was much better"...but I'm not liking the current direction.

The Assassins Creed multiplayer is amazing (
 ). It's not about killing everything that moves, you have to think a bit when playing.

About ME3, I also hate that multiplayer. Instead of making a MP, they could focus on the SP and improve it somehow.  Maybe more romance options, because there's a lot of talking about romance DLC. Or improve those fetch quests.

[BatmanPWNS]

Buddy McFlurry wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Agreed. I really, really loved Deus Ex: HR.
And those games you mention are looking really sweet.
The downside is that nowadays games are plagued with DRM, day one DLC, tacked-on multiplayer...
Some games can get away with it, like Assassin's Creed. That franchise really -didn't need- multiplayer, but it wasn't that bad in the end. But some others just don't need it, like Dead Space 2...and alas, the multiplayer was terrible. Some liked the MP in Mass Effect 3, I hated it...I still think the game didn't need that.
And the whole situation with Bethesda and their inability to give PS3 users the DLC...well, just goes to show that this model is quite broken. And to think Skyrim got almost every GOTY award.
I won't say something cliche like "Gaming in the old days was much better"...but I'm not liking the current direction.

The Assassins Creed multiplayer is amazing (
 ). It's not about killing everything that moves, you have to think a bit when playing.

About ME3, I also hate that multiplayer. Instead of making a MP, they could focus on the SP and improve it somehow.  Maybe more romance options, because there's a lot of talking about romance DLC. Or improve those fetch quests.

Brotherhood had an extremely boring MP. Never played Revelation since it was just an excuse to squeeze money. AC3 better have a good MP.

[termokanden]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You say that as if a game like TW2 or Dark Souls has no tactics required to be used in it. I have played some challenging turn-based games, like say King's Bounty on Impossible difficulty, and I can't say I was that challenged by it.

I was talking about the type of challenge rather than which specific game is more challenging. I love strategy games as well as RPGs and I am a bit sad to see that almost all modern RPGs are based on FPS/TPS skills.

AshedMan:  Yeah my loss. I tried Fallout and BG and I couldn't get past the 10 mins of them, maybe it's because of the fact that I can't play a game that's so old or because I don't have the patience for it.

Honestly I also don't give a **** for Wasteland 2.

I don't get that at all. Maybe it's because I started out on a C64 and am not particularly fussy when it comes to graphics, or whether it has a voiced protagonist or not.

But it's just a point of view after all and it's not any bit more or less valid than yours.

I'm just happy I can enjoy them.

[Addai]

Logan Cloud wrote...

It's good that companies are allowing other people to connect and have fun with each other. If that's not your thing, you're welcome not to do it.

If someone plays an RPG differently than you, do you hate them for it? It's the same thing. They enjoy the same game as you, but they enjoy it differently. Through MP. It's no reason to turn your back on gaming, or those people.

That's how I feel anyway.

Part of the complaint is that publishers are pushing multiplayer onto every game whether it belongs there or not.  See here, a dev saying that they were forced to add MP where it didn't fit and it did in fact affect the whole game in a negative way.

But gaming is not dead, because EA =/= gaming.  They obviously think that they're the center of the universe but they're wrong.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
And no I haven't played them and I don't give a damn to. We don't live in 90s or early 2000-2003. We live in 2012.

How narrowminded...

[carine]

Logan Cloud wrote...

It's pretty narrow-minded to discount gaming as a whole because of this too. If you don't like MP, just don't play it. You can enjoy SP just fine without it.

In my honest opinion, a lot of you are acting like drama queens. Most games these days have MP anyway. It's nothing new.

Agreed.

[ejoslin]

Heh, EA even put MP on the Sims 3. Talk about idiotic. Servers barely work, actual communication is impossible, and it introduced many bugs and also managed to transfer unwanted files between computers -- and it took awhile for that bug to be fixed.

MP is great. It's just not needed to be in every single game.

[chasemme]

Logan Cloud wrote...

It's pretty narrow-minded to discount gaming as a whole because of this too. If you don't like MP, just don't play it. You can enjoy SP just fine without it.

In my honest opinion, a lot of you are acting like drama queens. Most games these days have MP anyway. It's nothing new.

This is mostly a personal opinion, but I wouldn't say I'm the only one who thinks this way:

I love MP and SP games, but SP franchises that toss in MP (Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect) tend to be the multiplayer experiences that get dull really fast. Likewise, the other way around (Smash Bros, Starcraft) tend to have single player portions I only play once through, if that (though I do admit to thoroughly enjoying Starcraft II's campaign, but that game took, what, 10 years to come out?)

It's not so much that MP taints the sanctity of my solo experience, ME3's multiplayer I thought was, in theory, cool. I just never bought a Bioware game with the intent of playing multiplayer, nor did I buy any SC game for the campaign. If it's good, great. If it's boring, (ME3's, IMO) it feels like some of the money I spent wanting a great single-player game went toward paying for multiplayer that I never had interest in. There's the obvious controversy around the ME3 SP, and with a couple more game modes I may have gotten more into the MP as well, but the effort was split and I personally feel like both ends left something to be desired.

I don't think it's overreacting, I have potential of losing out on the game I wanted so that EA can try and bring in the CoD crowd. I happen to like shooters, which is why I own every CS game, there's nothing wrong with them, they're just disjoint experiences and don't NEED to be merged, especially when both sides suffer.

Modifié par chasemme, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:25 .

[Korusus]

This is why Bethesda is the only AAA developer with integrity anymore. They have outright refused to include multiplayer in their single-player games. And it's not because people don't beg for it. It's because they would only ever do it because they knew they could do it well. Not because some stupid, idiotic, overpaid corporate suit who knows absolutely nothing forced them to do it (a la Mass Effect 3, a la Dragon Age 3, a la BioWare)

[Volus Warlord]

C9316 wrote...

Time for a second gaming crash?

That'll be when they all switch over to F2P with slot machine unlock mechanics and realize how much the system blows.


My simple and concise opinion.
-Some games are designed to be single player and others to be multiplayer.

-There are some SP games in which MP has absolutely no place. This is not debatable.  If you have to completely redo the basics of the game to introduce MP, it has no place. If MP has next to nothing in common with SP, MP has no place.

-If MP has no place, adding it would be inconsistant and detrimental to the overall quality of the game.

-If MP can fit in an SP game, but will be poorly done due to whatever influential factors, it is not worth adding. It is better to have no MP then to have a poorly done one. If it is not something you are proud of, don't release it. Heh, who am I kidding. 

-If MP can fit in an SP game, but will take time and effort away from SP, which it almost certainly will, it is not worth adding. If it is an SP game, every effort should be made to make SP exceptional, as the game's -and the developer's and the IP's-reputation hinges on that.

-Therefore, many of the dedicated SP games are better off without MP.

TL:DR Having MP for the sake of having MP will be destructive to SP games, developers, and IPs. It's a really dense mentality.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[inzesky]

I believe Spec Ops' lead designer had something very interesting comments concerning tacked on multiplayer:

"Bull**** should not exist...there is no doubt that it's an overall failure." That is how lead designer Cory Davis feels about the multiplayer aspect of Spec Ops: The Line, and as he speaks with Polygon, he doesn't mince words.

Davis explained that multiplayer was "never a focus of the development," but 2K was adamant that Spec Ops include a multiplayer component.

"It was literally a check box that the financial predictions said we needed, and 2K was relentless in making sure that it happened - even at the detriment of the overall project and the perception of the game."

According to Davis, the multiplayer is detrimental to the overall feel of the game, as "it sheds a negative light on all of the meaningful things we did in the single-player experience."

http://www.computera...verall-failure/