491 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...

First part is only nitpicking. Typically used, when you have no real counter arguments. Last part is true and a good advice

[Yuqi]

pmac_tk421 wrote...

I tried to like Skyrim, but I couldn't. I prefer DA2. Yeah I said it. Get over it.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Regarding difficult quests/quests requiring patience:

Oblivion Fan Interview II

6. Concerning the Dynamic Quest Compass, how might it replace the previously text-based instructions Elder Scrolls fans have become accustomed to? Furthermore, will the compass be an option which can be turned on and/or off at the player's leisure?

It's a lifesaver to us and everyone who has played it. We should have done it long ago. We use it to show you where a goal is when we want you to know about it. A good example is the first quest in Morrowind, to find the Spymaster in Balmora. Most people who played Morrowind never find him, because they don't like to read directions, they get confused and lost.

Now picture him roaming around town, going to the store, eating at the tavern, locking his house at night. And you have a quest to talk to this guy, all you want is a little info so you can keep playing. He's impossible to find without this quest target. And we want you to find him, we don't want it to be a puzzle, or frustrating.

So no, you cannot turn it off. Trust me, you cannot play without it, it's not distracting at all, and it's 100% necessary to find things we tell you to find. Now, we don't always give you a quest target. There are many quests where the person you're talking to does not know where something is, and you will not get one, and you have to bribe people to find out where something is, or we just want you to find it on your own.

Bethesda brought in quest compasses/markers because people couldn't find Caius Cosades and having directions without a compass/GPS marker was deemed too frustrating.

Lol. Make of that what you will.

What I did like about Morrowind was the amount of thought that went into the lore and making the world internally consistent. Well, until you exploit the game's mechanics and become superdemigodman. Attention to detail is what Morrowind had IMO. Because of the wikipedia entry style NPC dialogs, the level of depth in the world and the richness of the setting and the stories and characters within are sorely underrated. The level of choice and consequence on the micro-level (i.e the ways in which you can approach a situation and how that affects the outcome) is also underrated.

It's something that I wish both the Elder Scrolls series and Dragon Age series take a look at, because it's something that's being lost in the rush for a more cinematic or guided experience, that element of player agency (not really sure where I stand on Skyrim, I like it but it simulatenously moves both towards and away from the kind of design that defined Morrowind). It doesn't need to necessarily be rewarding in a "equal content" manner, just acknowledged. You can save the falling mage in Morrowind. That ambitious mage who makes those flight scrolls. You can save him and he just tells you to shove off like the arrogant Telvanni he is. Not through a cinematic choice, but if you have the mind and ability to cast slowfall as he plummets. I want more **** like that in RPGs. All kinds of RPGs.

With that tangent out of the way, I want Skyrim's approach to marriage in Dragon Age 3. It streamlines the gift giving process of Dragon Age (Origins especially) by boiling it down to just one item.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 15 décembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...

First part is only nitpicking. Typically used, when you have no real counter arguments.

Actually, it wasn't only nitpicking.  The thing is, this is exactly the response I knew you were going to make too.  I actually wish I had actually put it in my post.  Alas.


The point I was trying to make is that simply because people like a particular game style, doesn't make them stupid.  By extension, simply because someone does like a particular game style, doesn't give much of an indication that they are more intellectually capable.

The reason why I used it, is you were directly making reference to the intelletual capabilities of people.  This isn't a case of "I think hockey is teh gratest" and me going "Uh, you can't even spell.  Clearly you aren't smart, so your argument is invalid."  This is a case of you calling out the subpar intellectual capabilites of other people (specifically, the people I apparently make games for), while I utilize parody by being pretentious and pointing out your intellectual short comings.  It's all dumb and innately makes people defensive.

This is a case of "You're implying you are intellectually superior to those that prefer games you do not like."  It's always the people with different tastes that that are either young, or stupid.  Or both.  How many times do people go "It's the ADD 12 year old that's ruining my gaming!"  The ironic part is that it's just as much (if not moreso) the 40 year old father of 3 that's "ruining your gaming."

I am 31 years old, with a Bachelor's degree in Computing Science.  I am far and away more intelligent than I was when I was 13 years old.  However, when I was 13 I had no problems clicking on every single button in XCOM trying to figure out what each button did and how the heck to play the game, to the point where I basically played the game for 8-16 hours a day over summer vacation and was a full on expert at it in the 2 months of summer vacation.

I have no where near the time to apply that level of commitment to my gaming anymore.  I still enjoy deep and complex games, but I seek games for other types of escapist enjoyment too, rather than full on intellectual challenges all the time.  Probably in part because I don't watch TV to unwind, I play video games to do that too.  What it does mean, however, is that if a game isn't relatively intuitive in how it plays, there's a greater chance I won't be able to spend the time to figure it out.  Now being intuitive doesn't mean it has to be simple and shallow, just as being obfuscated doesn't mean it's complex and deep.  But I have a lot of gaming options (much more so than I did in 1994), so if I have to go digging for the challenging and deep gameplay, it's a serious issue.  Because I went digging for the deep and challenging gameplay of Oblivion and ended up concluding that I didn't really enjoy any of the 40 or so hours I spent on the game.

If I spend a huge amount of time playing a game I don't enjoy looking for the interesting and complex features that aren't actually present, it means I'm not spending that time playing something I actually would enjoy.  No one wants to do that.


So yes, there's not much merit to me pointing out that you made an intellectual mistake in your post, just as there isn't much of a point in you making a generalization about the intelligence of other people because they like different video games than you.  We both come across as pretentious and in the end not much is accomplished as the other side just gets defensive, right?


(it should be noted that I don't actually think you're stupid or of subpar intellectual capability.  I was trying to be pedantic)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 15 décembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[Dessalines]

Rawgrim wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

The reason why I loved Dragon Age, because it was so different than Oblivion.After playing Bioware games, I cannot even play Skyrim or Amalur without being digusted by the lack of story.
When I want to wander around aimlessly, I go outside. I don't need to log into a computer world and marvel at the simulation around me.(Unless it is Journey, and Journey is not open ended either) I don't need to play dress up with my companions either for me to get the rpg experience.(I understand if people need too)

In Skyrim, you still are lead by the nose in the story. Can you switch factions after the crown quest? No? Can you kill the Dark Brotherhood after joining them? No? Your achievements don't matter. You can be the head of the Guilds, and doesn't change the dialogue. I even got threaten by someone who told me there knew the DarkBrother which I was the leader of.

The news I read in Game Informer is the first time I am thinking about not buying Dragon Age 3.
If Bioware is sacrificing story and player choices so they can fill up a game content with your player wandering around than I think I am not going buy Dragon Age 3.

I expect Bioware to be leaders. When Dragon Age trailers came out, people were talking about how much it sucked. How much it wasn't like previous Bioware Games So Dragon Age 2 wasn't like by everyone? That doesn't meant you stop being leaders and start being followers.

People with their crazy EA conspiracy have finallly proven one right by their complaints. They have forced Bioware to change their approach to games in search of profits.

You are lead by the nose in DA as well. You get huge markers on the map, telling you where to go. The journal tells you exactly what to do when you get there.

No, you can`t switch factions after the crown quest, simply because the quest is done. You have put someone on the throne.

Not sure if you can kill the Dark Brotherhood after you become the leader. Then again, you can`t kill the Wardens after you join them either, so...Your point?

Yes. The dialogue changes when you are the head of the guild. It is acknowledged plenty. Even by people you meet in the streets, that are somehow affiliated with the guild in question. After the main quest you even start hearing bard songs about you.

You mean player choices getting removed would keep you from buying the game? Racial choices got removed in DA2. So did companion customization, and coices that would affect the outcome of the game. It was as linear as it could get.

If someone elses product sells more than yours, and they make more money than you do with their pruduct, you become a follower, not a leader.

Look at what EA did to Origin and Westwood. Take a look at what happened to their franchises after EA bought them. You can see alot of simmilarities with the direction Bioware games are taking now. So i can understand why people would jump to conclusions.

Your whole post reeks of hypocrisy. What is ok for DA is not ok for Skyrim etc. And some points you are just making up.

1)I don't have a problem being led by a nose in a game that was my point. Most people talk about how open ended games don't lead you by the nose. I was proving that they did too..
2)As I was proving that are still being that you can be led by the nose, you should be able to steal the crown back. I learned some information which caused me to change my mind about my decision.  You couldn't change your mind, and you couldn't switch side. There was no real logical reason why you couldn't.
3)Again, my point being open ended games lead you about the nose too, The Dark Brotherhood becomes plot protected in the game either in the beginning they are not.There is a quest to kill them.
4)No, when you are the head of Dark Brother's Guild, you will still get threaten by the female leader who aligns herself with the Thieves Guild. She threatens you with the DarkBrother Hood Guild. It makes no sense. A random guard mention something is a whisper is not that impressive. It is not acknowledged by anyone not affliated with the Guild. You are basically the leader of every Guild in SKyrim, thane of every city,and the Dragonborne. Lol, that should probably get you some major dialogue changes from everyone. You are basically the most powerful person in Skyrim. The dialogue doesn't change overall. So I did not make that up.
5)I think removing racial choices actually was an innovater move by Bioware. I always thought the idea of playing an elf or dwarf took aware from the atmosphere of the game.
6)Again, it is an EA conspiracy nut theory to believe that EA is buying up companies and forcing the companies to redesign their games just for profits,, but Bioware moving away from player because Skyrim sold better is real.
7)Since the point of my post was to show how open-ended games lead you by the nose too, then it is not hyprocrisy. I am not against Dragon Age's approach about being led by the nose, but I am against people thinking that because open ended games allow you to wander around aimlessly for hours that they are not leading you by the nose too
8)If everyone copies the best selling game, then you have no innovation. It is that simple.
9)Taking the high road, I can understand why some people enjoy open-ended games. I bragged about how great Fallout 3 to non-gamers. (Before they change the ending) I haven't done that since Defenders on Atarai 2600  Personally, I am not impressed or excited by this latter announcement. If the game is more like Skyrim than the Bioware games that I played and loved, then I will probably not buy it. 
10)Bioware storytelling and player choices made it special.for me.

Modifié par Dessalines, 15 décembre 2012 - 12:41 .

[frankf43]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...

First part is only nitpicking. Typically used, when you have no real counter arguments.

Actually, it wasn't only nitpicking.  The thing is, this is exactly the response I knew you were going to make too.  I actually wish I had actually put it in my post.  Alas.


The point I was trying to make is that simply because people like a particular game style, doesn't make them stupid.  By extension, simply because someone does like a particular game style, doesn't give much of an indication that they are more intellectually capable.

The reason why I used it, is you were directly making reference to the intelletual capabilities of people.  This isn't a case of "I think hockey is teh gratest" and me going "Uh, you can't even spell.  Clearly you aren't smart, so your argument is invalid."  This is a case of you calling out the subpar intellectual capabilites of other people (specifically, the people I apparently make games for), while I utilize parody by being pretentious and pointing out your intellectual short comings.  It's all dumb and innately makes people defensive.

This is a case of "You're implying you are intellectually superior to those that prefer games you do not like."  It's always the people with different tastes that that are either young, or stupid.  Or both.  How many times do people go "It's the ADD 12 year old that's ruining my gaming!"  The ironic part is that it's just as much (if not moreso) the 40 year old father of 3 that's "ruining your gaming."

I am 31 years old, with a Bachelor's degree in Computing Science.  I am far and away more intelligent than I was when I was 13 years old.  However, when I was 13 I had no problems clicking on every single button in XCOM trying to figure out what each button did and how the heck to play the game, to the point where I basically played the game for 8-16 hours a day over summer vacation and was a full on expert at it in the 2 months of summer vacation.

I have no where near the time to apply that level of commitment to my gaming anymore.  I still enjoy deep and complex games, but I seek games for other types of escapist enjoyment too, rather than full on intellectual challenges all the time.  Probably in part because I don't watch TV to unwind, I play video games to do that too.  What it does mean, however, is that if a game isn't relatively intuitive in how it plays, there's a greater chance I won't be able to spend the time to figure it out.  Now being intuitive doesn't mean it has to be simple and shallow, just as being obfuscated doesn't mean it's complex and deep.  But I have a lot of gaming options (much more so than I did in 1994), so if I have to go digging for the challenging and deep gameplay, it's a serious issue.  Because I went digging for the deep and challenging gameplay of Oblivion and ended up concluding that I didn't really enjoy any of the 40 or so hours I spent on the game.

If I spend a huge amount of time playing a game I don't enjoy looking for the interesting and complex features that aren't actually present, it means I'm not spending that time playing something I actually would enjoy.  No one wants to do that.


So yes, there's not much merit to me pointing out that you made an intellectual mistake in your post, just as there isn't much of a point in you making a generalization about the intelligence of other people because they like different video games than you.  We both come across as pretentious and in the end not much is accomplished as the other side just gets defensive, right?


(it should be noted that I don't actually think you're stupid or of subpar intellectual capability.  I was trying to be pedantic)

Totally agree there is way too much of this, "well if you think differently than I do you must be stupid in today's world." I find that if you have to lower yourself to insulting the person you are arguing with then you have already lost because you didn't have a constructive argument to make.

[Rawgrim]

Dessalines wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

The reason why I loved Dragon Age, because it was so different than Oblivion.After playing Bioware games, I cannot even play Skyrim or Amalur without being digusted by the lack of story.
When I want to wander around aimlessly, I go outside. I don't need to log into a computer world and marvel at the simulation around me.(Unless it is Journey, and Journey is not open ended either) I don't need to play dress up with my companions either for me to get the rpg experience.(I understand if people need too)

In Skyrim, you still are lead by the nose in the story. Can you switch factions after the crown quest? No? Can you kill the Dark Brotherhood after joining them? No? Your achievements don't matter. You can be the head of the Guilds, and doesn't change the dialogue. I even got threaten by someone who told me there knew the DarkBrother which I was the leader of.

The news I read in Game Informer is the first time I am thinking about not buying Dragon Age 3.
If Bioware is sacrificing story and player choices so they can fill up a game content with your player wandering around than I think I am not going buy Dragon Age 3.

I expect Bioware to be leaders. When Dragon Age trailers came out, people were talking about how much it sucked. How much it wasn't like previous Bioware Games So Dragon Age 2 wasn't like by everyone? That doesn't meant you stop being leaders and start being followers.

People with their crazy EA conspiracy have finallly proven one right by their complaints. They have forced Bioware to change their approach to games in search of profits.

You are lead by the nose in DA as well. You get huge markers on the map, telling you where to go. The journal tells you exactly what to do when you get there.

No, you can`t switch factions after the crown quest, simply because the quest is done. You have put someone on the throne.

Not sure if you can kill the Dark Brotherhood after you become the leader. Then again, you can`t kill the Wardens after you join them either, so...Your point?

Yes. The dialogue changes when you are the head of the guild. It is acknowledged plenty. Even by people you meet in the streets, that are somehow affiliated with the guild in question. After the main quest you even start hearing bard songs about you.

You mean player choices getting removed would keep you from buying the game? Racial choices got removed in DA2. So did companion customization, and coices that would affect the outcome of the game. It was as linear as it could get.

If someone elses product sells more than yours, and they make more money than you do with their pruduct, you become a follower, not a leader.

Look at what EA did to Origin and Westwood. Take a look at what happened to their franchises after EA bought them. You can see alot of simmilarities with the direction Bioware games are taking now. So i can understand why people would jump to conclusions.

Your whole post reeks of hypocrisy. What is ok for DA is not ok for Skyrim etc. And some points you are just making up.

1)I don't have a problem being led by a nose in a game that was my point. Most people talk about how open ended games don't lead you by the nose. I was proving that they did too..
2)As I was proving that are still being that you can be led by the nose, you should be able to steal the crown back. I learned some information which caused me to change my mind about my decision.  You couldn't change your mind, and you couldn't switch side. There was no real logical reason why you couldn't.
3)Again, my point being open ended games lead you about the nose too, The Dark Brotherhood becomes plot protected in the game either in the beginning they are not.There is a quest to kill them.
4)No, when you are the head of Dark Brother's Guild, you will still get threaten by the female leader who aligns herself with the Thieves Guild. She threatens you with the DarkBrother Hood Guild. It makes no sense. A random guard mention something is a whisper is not that impressive. It is not acknowledged by anyone not affliated with the Guild. You are basically the leader of every Guild in SKyrim, thane of every city,and the Dragonborne. Lol, that should probably get you some major dialogue changes from everyone. You are basically the most powerful person in Skyrim. The dialogue doesn't change overall. So I did not make that up.
5)I think removing racial choices actually was an innovater move by Bioware. I always thought the idea of playing an elf or dwarf took aware from the atmosphere of the game.
6)Again, it is an EA conspiracy nut theory to believe that EA is buying up companies and forcing the companies to redesign their games just for profits,, but Bioware moving away from player because Skyrim sold better is real.
7)Since the point of my post was to show how open-ended games lead you by the nose too, then it is not hyprocrisy. I am not against Dragon Age's approach about being led by the nose, but I am against people thinking that because open ended games allow you to wander around aimlessly for hours that they are not leading you by the nose too
8)If everyone copies the best selling game, then you have no innovation. It is that simple.
9)Taking the high road, I can understand why some people enjoy open-ended games. I bragged about how great Fallout 3 to non-gamers. (Before they change the ending) I haven't done that since Defenders on Atarai 2600  Personally, I am not impressed or excited by this latter announcement. If the game is more like Skyrim than the Bioware games that I played and loved, then I will probably not buy it. 
10)Bioware storytelling and player choices made it special.for me.

Some spacing would be nice, so I won`t bleed my eyes out reading that huge block o text.

[H. Birdman]

You aren't going to out-Skyrim Skyrim. And if you're Bioware, you don't want to try. Skyrim is a great theme park. DA is a great novel. You can't be both. If you try, you'll end up with a really bad compromise.

That is to say, you can't make the story and the character arcs compelling if the world is just a random agglomeration of one-off side quests in a giant sandbox. There has to be something urgent driving the protagonists forward --preventing them from saying, "Hey, why don't we take a few weeks and just go dungeon diving for treasure"-- or the narrative just dies.

Bigger areas? Sure. More well-crafted side quests in new locations? Absolutely. But the guardrails are what make DAO better than Skyrim. You can't ditch them.

[Drunkencelt]

I would not mind a more open one, but it better be a lot more like Dragon Age 1 than Skyrim.

Skyrim isn't bad besides being the buggiest major game I can ever remember and having to travel to town every 5 ft into a dungeon sell.

A long as the great bioware character development and choices are there, I am in.

You are could argue Bethseda made major changes to Elder scrolls to be more like Bioware RPGS .

[Elhanan]

What I sort of expect is like in DA we may travel to various locations on the World Map, but in these areas, or in Random Encounters, we will have a greater degree of freedom in which to explore tactical advantages, treasures, ruins, etc; not the sandbox of Skyrim, but more detailed areas then we were getting earlier.

[Khwarezm89]

I like Skyrim but poor story

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

The reason why I loved Dragon Age, because it was so different than Oblivion.After playing Bioware games, I cannot even play Skyrim or Amalur without being digusted by the lack of story.

When I want to wander around aimlessly, I go outside. I don't need to log into a computer world and marvel at the simulation around me.(Unless it is Journey, and Journey is not open ended either) I don't need to play dress up with my companions either for me to get the rpg experience.(I understand if people need too)

In Skyrim, you still are lead by the nose in the story. Can you switch factions after the crown quest? No? Can you kill the Dark Brotherhood after joining them? No? Your achievements don't matter. You can be the head of the Guilds, and doesn't change the dialogue. I even got threaten by someone who told me there knew the DarkBrother which I was the leader of.

The news I read in Game Informer is the first time I am thinking about not buying Dragon Age 3.
If Bioware is sacrificing story and player choices so they can fill up a game content with your player wandering around than I think I am not going buy Dragon Age 3.

I expect Bioware to be leaders. When Dragon Age trailers came out, people were talking about how much it sucked. How much it wasn't like previous Bioware Games So Dragon Age 2 wasn't like by everyone? That doesn't meant you stop being leaders and start being followers.

People with their crazy EA conspiracy have finallly proven one right by their complaints. They have forced Bioware to change their approach to games in search of profits.

You are lead by the nose in DA as well. You get huge markers on the map, telling you where to go. The journal tells you exactly what to do when you get there.

No, you can`t switch factions after the crown quest, simply because the quest is done. You have put someone on the throne.

Not sure if you can kill the Dark Brotherhood after you become the leader. Then again, you can`t kill the Wardens after you join them either, so...Your point?

Yes. The dialogue changes when you are the head of the guild. It is acknowledged plenty. Even by people you meet in the streets, that are somehow affiliated with the guild in question. After the main quest you even start hearing bard songs about you.

You mean player choices getting removed would keep you from buying the game? Racial choices got removed in DA2. So did companion customization, and coices that would affect the outcome of the game. It was as linear as it could get.

If someone elses product sells more than yours, and they make more money than you do with their pruduct, you become a follower, not a leader.

Look at what EA did to Origin and Westwood. Take a look at what happened to their franchises after EA bought them. You can see alot of simmilarities with the direction Bioware games are taking now. So i can understand why people would jump to conclusions.

Your whole post reeks of hypocrisy. What is ok for DA is not ok for Skyrim etc. And some points you are just making up.

1)I don't have a problem being led by a nose in a game that was my point. Most people talk about how open ended games don't lead you by the nose. I was proving that they did too..

2)As I was proving that are still being that you can be led by the nose, you should be able to steal the crown back. I learned some information which caused me to change my mind about my decision.  You couldn't change your mind, and you couldn't switch side. There was no real logical reason why you couldn't.

3)Again, my point being open ended games lead you about the nose too, The Dark Brotherhood becomes plot protected in the game either in the beginning they are not.There is a quest to kill them.

4)No, when you are the head of Dark Brother's Guild, you will still get threaten by the female leader who aligns herself with the Thieves Guild. She threatens you with the DarkBrother Hood Guild. It makes no sense. A random guard mention something is a whisper is not that impressive. It is not acknowledged by anyone not affliated with the Guild. You are basically the leader of every Guild in SKyrim, thane of every city,and the Dragonborn. Lol, that should probably get you some major dialogue changes from everyone. You are basically the most powerful person in Skyrim. The dialogue doesn't change overall. So I did not make that up.

5)I think removing racial choices actually was an innovater move by Bioware. I always thought the idea of playing an elf or dwarf took aware from the atmosphere of the game.

6)Again, it is an EA conspiracy nut theory to believe that EA is buying up companies and forcing the companies to redesign their games just for profits,, but Bioware moving away from player because Skyrim sold better is real.

7)Since the point of my post was to show how open-ended games lead you by the nose too, then it is not hyprocrisy. I am not against Dragon Age's approach about being led by the nose, but I am against people thinking that because open ended games allow you to wander around aimlessly for hours that they are not leading you by the nose too.

8)If everyone copies the best selling game, then you have no innovation. It is that simple.

9)Taking the high road, I can understand why some people enjoy open-ended games. I bragged about how great Fallout 3 to non-gamers. (Before they change the ending) I haven't done that since Defenders on Atarai 2600  Personally, I am not impressed or excited by this latter announcement. If the game is more like Skyrim than the Bioware games that I played and loved, then I will probably not buy it. 

10)Bioware storytelling and player choices made it special.for me.

Some spacing would be nice, so I won`t bleed my eyes out reading that huge block o text.

You're welcome.

I would also like to add, that Larry Probst is no longer the CEO of Electronic Arts. So what they did back in 2003 has little bearing in 2012

[Yrkoon]

Dessalines wrote...
8)If everyone copies the best selling game, then you have no innovation. It is that simple.

LOL there's 101 reasons why this  statement is nonsense, especially in the context of what we're discussing on this thread.

[byzantine horse]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Mr Deathbot wrote...
... I would hope they take inspiration from real RPGs like Morrowind...

I think, games like Morrowind overwhelm the mental abilities of the majority of Bioware's target audience, f.e. the quests require a lot of patience and that's rare nowadays.

Blanketly insulting fans who like different games than you isn't acceptable.  I'm starting to grow exceptionally weary of it.

I mean, look at your own post, which insults the intelligence of those that like things you do not.  Though instead of using the proper two letter abbreviation to indicate an example (e.g. which is latin for exempli gratia: "for example") you have gone with "f.e" which is at best a vague internet colloquialism that no self respecting intellectual would ever use.

But then, you're not the one that struggles with mental abilities, it's the guys who like video games that you don't like.


People like different things.  Better to accept that and embrace things like crowdsourcing and an improving indie game scene (thanks in large part to digital distribution) as alternative ways to get the types of games that you find more interesting if the bigger publishers aren't delivering.


EDIT: responses here, since I did have a point to doing this
His
Mine

I can't express how awesome and justified this burn is.

[Dani Douglas]

I hope the only thing they take from skyrim is the beautiful landscapes and exploratory ability. That would be awesome, anything else and I will cry tears of blood I will be upset. I'm not bashing skyrim here, I think the game is pretty cool, it's just not for me because I am a very picky person and pretty vain as well about how my character looks lol. Also the combat was awkward for me, I prefer combat I can over look or see from a decent distance, not like I'm standing right there myself. Idk just throws me off is all lol.

[Mr Deathbot]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...

First part is only nitpicking. Typically used, when you have no real counter arguments.

Actually, it wasn't only nitpicking.  The thing is, this is exactly the response I knew you were going to make too.  I actually wish I had actually put it in my post.  Alas.


The point I was trying to make is that simply because people like a particular game style, doesn't make them stupid.  By extension, simply because someone does like a particular game style, doesn't give much of an indication that they are more intellectually capable.

The reason why I used it, is you were directly making reference to the intelletual capabilities of people.  This isn't a case of "I think hockey is teh gratest" and me going "Uh, you can't even spell.  Clearly you aren't smart, so your argument is invalid."  This is a case of you calling out the subpar intellectual capabilites of other people (specifically, the people I apparently make games for), while I utilize parody by being pretentious and pointing out your intellectual short comings.  It's all dumb and innately makes people defensive.

This is a case of "You're implying you are intellectually superior to those that prefer games you do not like."  It's always the people with different tastes that that are either young, or stupid.  Or both.  How many times do people go "It's the ADD 12 year old that's ruining my gaming!"  The ironic part is that it's just as much (if not moreso) the 40 year old father of 3 that's "ruining your gaming."

I am 31 years old, with a Bachelor's degree in Computing Science.  I am far and away more intelligent than I was when I was 13 years old.  However, when I was 13 I had no problems clicking on every single button in XCOM trying to figure out what each button did and how the heck to play the game, to the point where I basically played the game for 8-16 hours a day over summer vacation and was a full on expert at it in the 2 months of summer vacation.

I have no where near the time to apply that level of commitment to my gaming anymore.  I still enjoy deep and complex games, but I seek games for other types of escapist enjoyment too, rather than full on intellectual challenges all the time.  Probably in part because I don't watch TV to unwind, I play video games to do that too.  What it does mean, however, is that if a game isn't relatively intuitive in how it plays, there's a greater chance I won't be able to spend the time to figure it out.  Now being intuitive doesn't mean it has to be simple and shallow, just as being obfuscated doesn't mean it's complex and deep.  But I have a lot of gaming options (much more so than I did in 1994), so if I have to go digging for the challenging and deep gameplay, it's a serious issue.  Because I went digging for the deep and challenging gameplay of Oblivion and ended up concluding that I didn't really enjoy any of the 40 or so hours I spent on the game.

If I spend a huge amount of time playing a game I don't enjoy looking for the interesting and complex features that aren't actually present, it means I'm not spending that time playing something I actually would enjoy.  No one wants to do that.


So yes, there's not much merit to me pointing out that you made an intellectual mistake in your post, just as there isn't much of a point in you making a generalization about the intelligence of other people because they like different video games than you.  We both come across as pretentious and in the end not much is accomplished as the other side just gets defensive, right?


(it should be noted that I don't actually think you're stupid or of subpar intellectual capability.  I was trying to be pedantic)

It feels amazing that I started all this just by saying I wish DA would take some inspiration from Morrowind lol. On a more serious note I understand people just don't have time to stomp around a game for 100+ hours and figure out everything there is to do in that game, I also know that it isn't everyones cup of tea and everyone's entitled to drinking whatever flavor of tea they want no matter how disgusting it is.

   But I don't think that changes much in the way of "streamlining" or "dumbing down" as some people may call it. Now I mean no disrespect to you or the games you make and I don't claim to understand the reasons why you make the decisions you make in development, (I'm gonna get to my point soon enough I promise) ithings in games like DA:O or ME that people liked seemed to get cut out in the next installment of the series whether for player ease or to appeal to a broader audience I can't be sure, but it happens in all games and it makes sense with the growing budget of games that games need to sell more so more people need to buy games so toning down certain aspects of games OR adding differnt things that might appeal to people who wouldn't normally buy that particular game makes sense. Wich is where the frustration sets in I think because old time fans want the old mechanics back but feel they're being ignored because the developers have to focus on the newer fans to make money to stay in business.

  Now onto my main point. RPGs have become too similar, taking inspiration from Skyrim would be nice but would actually be nice is something different for a change, which is why I said take inspiration from Morrwind sure Morrowind's been done but takind inpiration from Morrwoind and copying it are two differnt things, I wanna see conflict (religious, cultural that sort of thing) I wann see lots of backstory and lore and an interesting world we wanna explore and one we want to know more about and one we can belive in all of this can simultaneously be made in a game that isn't huge and doesn't take forever to figure out where to go and where you are, though those are things I would like but I can live without.

[Moraj0224]

I believe that Bioware creates great stories, histories and little side hints that could offer a great expansive world to explore. Like some of the others have said. It doesn't have to be Skyrim, but if I am in a forest, I don't want to be stuck to the dirt road. I would like to be able to walk deeper into the forest and look around. In a city I would like to go into buildings and walk around second floors and look out at the city. If I am in a dungeon then yes I expect to be stuck to corridors but areas such as the deep roads offer many non linear areas to explore. Older RPG like BG2 had small sandbox type areas that were fun to play with. The main problem now is the expectation that this new engine and next gen will demand for a "better" member of the DA series. I am just hoping that more exploration and more side quests, such as those in DA:O are available.

Modifié par Moraj0224, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[74 Wrex]

Bioware should focus on gameplay and story instead of visuals and multiplayer

[Giltspur]

For what it's worth many of Skyrim's dungeons are linear even if they feel open.  Take Glacial Crevice in Dawnguard DLC.  There's only one way through.  Sure there's a spiraling path up the dark and you're not quite sure if you're going the right way but you're being blocked and hey you're back in the light.  There are forks but one path always deadends and has treasure that you can then back out of and get back to main path.  But the path goes up and down and curves around.  Are you going deeper or trying to escape?  You don't know--so it feels like exploring.  Sure you can always jump off the path down into the water.  But that would be stupid.  You are in what feels like an open area that you're exploring that upon reflection has an obvious path.

In general, Dragon Age dungeons feel flat.  If something has levels it's just going up stairs from one flat area to another or maybe a raised level from stairs.  It might be cool if you got a sense of gradual ascension, descension and moving around curves while exploring "dungeon" environments.  Not sure what challenges a four-person party or the camera you use presents to that, but you can still get that feel in three-player sections of Skryim.

[Melca36]

Just because DA3 may have taken some inspiration from SKYRIm does not mean its going to exactly like Skyrim.

Heres a novel concept...how about judging the game once you've PLAYED it?

[Heimdall]

Melca36 wrote...

Just because DA3 may have taken some inspiration from SKYRIm does not mean its going to exactly like Skyrim.

Heres a novel concept...how about judging the game once you've PLAYED it?

Madness! 

[computasaysnoo]

Dragon Age + Skyrim will equal an extreme no matter what. Either it will be the best game of 2013, or else a failed copy of Skyrim. I recently bought Skyrim over the holidays because I wanted to see what the hype was about, and although I was excited to sink my teeth into the game of 2012, as I was playing, I couldn't lie to myself any longer and deny that it really was just a hype. I mean, don't get me wrong, I really appreciated the graphics, the freedom, the intricate aspects to fighting/gathering/creating. That was all great, but where Skyrim falls to a level of mediocracy is in its lack of story, characters, depth and profoundness. Because I had played Origins, I was expecting Skyrim to be similar to it, but maybe even a step further. Except, it still falls at Origin's feet. The characters in Skyrim are beyond dull. I mean, the dialogue is the same with them and there is literally nothing to talk about. They do stupid things and follow you for no reason, and when you go to talk to them, they're as absent as a Darkspawn pelt. 
I wanted to get into Skyrim so badly because I really did want to like it, but because of my experiences with Origins, I just couldn't warm to it. I think that had I never experienced the Dragon Age franchise, I'd probably love Skyrim but because my standards have been raised so much by Bioware and the Dragon Age team, I'm finding Skyrim to be nothing more than an action-packed hype. 
That being said, if Dragon Age 3 were to incorporate the freedom and graphics of Skyrim, with the layered, relatable characters/story of Origins, then it will be the best game of 2013 without a doubt. Skyrim and Dragon Age could be supplementary to each other, and because the ball is in Bioware's court to produce a new game, I think that this is their chance to pull a great one out of the bag. Considering they don't incorporate the bad [lack of character/story depth] parts of Skyrim into DA3, as that would be the rock they'd perish on. 
I just hope, hope and hope that they don't compromise the game for the action junkies who just want a game to kill, create gore and play multiplayer all day with their friends. Where Dragon Age has the upper hand over Elder Scrolls is its characters. Add these characters to the world of Skyrim and it's an A+. I hope that the DA team isn't subject to the Skyrim hype, and isn't creating a 'Skyrim 2.' That would be the negative extreme I was talking about. 

Anyway. Excited the third edition. 

[computasaysnoo]

74 Wrex wrote...

Bioware should focus on gameplay and story instead of visuals and multiplayer

Oh, and this.