602 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
WFT? I'm a dumb consumer, not a politician and I need to be eased into things.

I realize this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but... Are you actually happy to be in the position of "dumb consumer"? Because... that's interesting. Either it's very admireable with some deep Sokratic or zen knowing behind it, or is... not so very.

[SpunkyMonkey]

eroeru wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
WFT? I'm a dumb consumer, not a politician and I need to be eased into things.

I realize this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but... Are you actually happy to be in the position of "dumb consumer"? Because... that's interesting. Either it's very admireable with some deep Sokratic or zen knowing behind it, or is... not so very.

It was said with a pinch of salt, but on a more serious note I'd say that I am a more casual gamer than the majority on here. I play games, and during the winter play them a fair bit (avaerage 10-15 hours a week), but I can go weeks without touching them - especially in the Summer.

So I need to be eased into games - as do many other non-hardcore players (who indidently BW seem to be so keen on attracting to their games that they are argueably pandering to their wishes instead of core fans). All games for me should have a nice, easy to get into, non-heavy section which familiarizes us casuals with the game as, what seem like second nature to hardcore games, are often mechanics and setups which we have never come across before.

What's so baffling is that the likes of EA & BW seem to think that turning DA into ME is the route to go down, instead of just making RPGs easier to get into, is the way to go. TW2, for me, is a poor game which takes too much work on the players part to get into. If you're a hardcore gamer you may enjoy that aspect of things, but as a casual I don't and prefer to have a 1st playthrough which doesn't get too heavy, with the depth of the game being there to unearth on my 2nd run.

It's basic a entertainment principle which has existed for decades - e.g. Star Wars is goodies vs baddies with lasers and powers to the casual, but to the hardcore fan it's got religious depth, political overtones etc. But that depth doesn't get in the way of things.

In TW2 I just switch off at all the garble being thrown at me for the 1st time as if I've read every journal entry.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 24 janvier 2013 - 11:04 .

[Addai]

Not all games need to be the same. That's what mainstreaming does and it's sad. I don't play Demon's Souls- Dark Souls, for instance, but I'm glad they exist for people who like that sort of game, and I wouldn't ever demand they be something they're not to appeal to me. There's too much of that already.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

Not all games need to be the same. That's what mainstreaming does and it's sad. I don't play Demon's Souls- Dark Souls, for instance, but I'm glad they exist for people who like that sort of game, and I wouldn't ever demand they be something they're not to appeal to me. There's too much of that already.

The problem is when you get a game that appealed to a wide audience to start. I'm sure that DA:O captured more than just people that want a hardcore turned-based RPG. But people will ask for that.

That's basically what happened with TW2 - it was popular, which led to many playing it. Not everyone enjoyed the same parts. So now people ask for the parts they like. 

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
The problem is when you get a game that appealed to a wide audience to start. I'm sure that DA:O captured more than just people that want a hardcore turned-based RPG. But people will ask for that.

That's basically what happened with TW2 - it was popular, which led to many playing it. Not everyone enjoyed the same parts. So now people ask for the parts they like. 

Witcher games were always story-dense.  TW2 stressed the political aspects more than Witcher lore, but what I see is someone saying that The Witcher shouldn't be The Witcher and should be like Fable or whatever.

Modifié par Addai67, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:29 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Witcher games were always story-dense.  TW2 stressed the political aspects more than Witcher lore, but what I see is someone saying that The Witcher shouldn't be The Witcher and should be like Fable or whatever.

Okay, maybe I missed something. I understood the post to be about the game's difficulty. What I was trying to say was that someone might have *loved* the political aspect, but didn't like that the game was difficult (which the developers addressed, at least vs. the original release). 

[Cyberfrog81]

No, it's just the wrong game for him (including the politics). It's like someone watching Game of Thrones and expecting Xena: Warrior Princess.

So no, I don't want TW3 dumbed down to please people who just want to fight baddies.

[Nordicus]

"We at CDProjekt RED apologize to the people who felt confused about the conflicts and moral dilemmas of Witcher 2. We will try to fix that in Witcher 3.

For example, we shall make sure the player gets to see the Nilfgaardian Facility of Terror, where Nilfgaardian soldiers study weaponizing humans' transformation to Wraiths. It is a glorious location, the fumes of the magical human incinerator turn the sky red and turn any water undrinkable. It *is* for the improvement of mankind of course.

Not only that, but the player will also be able to finally see the Wild Hunt's ultimate purpose, but even if Geralt were to touch their minds, he'd still be fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding."

(I'm not trying to offend anyone, btw, just saw an opportunity for a joke)
 

[SpunkyMonkey]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

No, it's just the wrong game for him (including the politics). It's like someone watching Game of Thrones and expecting Xena: Warrior Princess.

So no, I don't want TW3 dumbed down to please people who just want to fight baddies.

A few of you have entirely missed my point.

I'm not saying that the game should be dumbed down - I'm saying that it should be easier to get into.

I've played both BG games through several times and have loved RPGs for years - I just class myself as a casual gamer because I don't invest anywhere near as many hours into gaming as some do, which means I don't keep on top of what are common game-mechanics and setups to some.

My point about "goodies vs baddies" is that the whole depth (religion, politics etc.) of good entertainment media such as Star Wars has a simple, easy-to-access front end for less hardcore fans. It doesn't have to be stripped down, it should just make sure that the depth of the media isn't essential for the user to enjoy it.

And in no way would I want games such as The Witcher dumbed down, I'd just like them to ease gamers in better (not even simpler, just better - so no random prologue for example, and a more even spread of combat and dialogue etc.).

In Exile makes a great point related to that - stretch your wings and try to pull in the mainstream and you will be asked to provide what they liked by them. That doesn't mean the game has to be watered down, it just means easier access for most. It's easy done - E.G. instead of relying on me to have to read journal entries to figure out the world build a picture of it with a few extra lines of dialogue.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 25 janvier 2013 - 01:44 .

[Nattfare]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to make the thread cleaner.

Worst ever lets play of the first one can be found here.

Opening cinematic was pretty.  On a dock now with Geralt.  His boat sucks.

I liked that cinematic even more when seeing that they even made the arrows act like real arrows.
During Letho's slow motion charge you can see the arrows spinning and wobbling in their flight. I was impressed by the fact that they had considered such a detail really.

[Cyberfrog81]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

I'm not saying that the game should be dumbed down - I'm saying that it should be easier to get into.

I've played both BG games through several times and have loved RPGs for years - I just class myself as a casual gamer because I don't invest anywhere near as many hours into gaming as some do, which means I don't keep on top of what are common game-mechanics and setups to some.

So they improved the tutorial pop-ups and they reduced the difficulty level of the early part of the game.

When I first played the game (before that update), it was indeed a challenge. But you could certainly overcome it. So, no, I don't pity the casual player who aren't willing to learn the mechanics.

With Dead Space I got my ass handed to me on Normal difficulty. I rarely play shooters; I was terrible at the game. Yet I don't seek out Dead Space fans to tell them the game is poor.

My point about "goodies vs baddies" is that the whole depth (religion, politics etc.) of good entertainment media such as Star Wars has a simple, easy-to-access front end for less hardcore fans. It doesn't have to be stripped down, it should just make sure that the depth of the media isn't essential for the user to enjoy it.

Star Wars is full of dumb, especially the prequels (the "political" writing almost as pathetic as the love story). Hardly a role model.

It's very much essential that the huge markets in Poland and Russia like the game. That presumably means the same themes and depth as in the written works. Too much hand-holding, and they won't be happy. Don't want to engage your brain? Play something else. There's plenty of casual games.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 25 janvier 2013 - 06:43 .

[Addai]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

I'm not saying that the game should be dumbed down - I'm saying that it should be easier to get into.

I see.  Well, a lot of people did complain about the prologue.  I think I've said here or elsewhere that I don't like it, and I recall CDPR saying that they would take criticisms of the game's lack of tutorial, story obscurity and difficulty at the beginning into consideration.

[billy the squid]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

eroeru wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
WFT? I'm a dumb consumer, not a politician and I need to be eased into things.

I realize this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but... Are you actually happy to be in the position of "dumb consumer"? Because... that's interesting. Either it's very admireable with some deep Sokratic or zen knowing behind it, or is... not so very.

Snip*

It's basic a entertainment principle which has existed for decades - e.g. Star Wars is goodies vs baddies with lasers and powers to the casual, but to the hardcore fan it's got religious depth, political overtones etc. But that depth doesn't get in the way of things.

In TW2 I just switch off at all the garble being thrown at me for the 1st time as if I've read every journal entry.

And that's why it's been saturated to death and flogged. That basic entertainment principle is horsesh!te if there is no reasoning behind why it should be applied to this particular context.

Star Wars has no religious depth, political or any such thing, it's the typical good vs bad, any way you cut it. And were it not a classic I'd label it as rubbish. (See new films for a good example, frankly I'd rather lobotomise myself with a pencil that watch that lot again.)

A song of Ice and Fire is not the typical Good vs Evil, frankly most of the characters are complete bastards or at least amoral, and they are by far the most interesting and complex characters that I've read in a book, or seen in the current TV series. Tywin Lannister, Lord Varys, Tyrion, Eddard Stark etc. The same with the Witcher 2 the characters are distinctly grey in moral outlook, And the plot is machiavellian in political machenations and power plays. Very much a reflection of medieval political turmoil in Europe. 

To turn it into a simplistic mess would make it the same as any other game using the same trope of good vs bad, all of which stand in the shadow of JRR Tolkien's work which defined what high fantasy is. No one is going to beat that, so I favour those that don't try to, they make their own take.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
A song of Ice and Fire is not the typical Good vs Evil, frankly most of the characters are complete bastards or at least amoral, and they are by far the most interesting and complex characters that I've read in a book, or seen in the current TV series. Tywin Lannister, Lord Varys, Tyrion, Eddard Stark etc.

I hope you're not implying Eddard to be either  a complete bastard or amoral? 'Cause that he's not. 

[fchopin]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

My opinion is play TW1 first and don't believe what others say.

[billy the squid]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
A song of Ice and Fire is not the typical Good vs Evil, frankly most of the characters are complete bastards or at least amoral, and they are by far the most interesting and complex characters that I've read in a book, or seen in the current TV series. Tywin Lannister, Lord Varys, Tyrion, Eddard Stark etc.

I hope you're not implying Eddard to be either  a complete bastard or amoral? 'Cause that he's not. 

Lol no. He's the epitome of moral virtue, yet in the World of Westeros it leads to his death. I like that yet he's sired a bastard too, but it's as yet unclear why he hid the details from John Snow. By comparison Jamie Lannister has been faithful to Cersi. I like the twisted comparison between the two.

Modifié par billy the squid, 26 janvier 2013 - 12:02 .

[Splinter Cell 108]

fchopin wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

My opinion is play TW1 first and don't believe what others say.

I'll do that.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

Try the first, but if you don't like it, play the second anyway. The Witcher 2 is such a different game from The Witcher 1 that it is actually possible to dislike the first and love the second.

[Dutchess]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

I admit Witcher 1 is not a game for everyone, so you should see for yourself if you can get into it. But I highly recommend trying it for the story. There are several interesting choices to make, not only in the main quests but in side quests as well, and the ongoing theme of what defines a monster is interesting and very well done, imo.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

I'm not saying that the game should be dumbed down - I'm saying that it should be easier to get into.

I've played both BG games through several times and have loved RPGs for years - I just class myself as a casual gamer because I don't invest anywhere near as many hours into gaming as some do, which means I don't keep on top of what are common game-mechanics and setups to some.

So they improved the tutorial pop-ups and they reduced the difficulty level of the early part of the game.

When I first played the game (before that update), it was indeed a challenge. But you could certainly overcome it. So, no, I don't pity the casual player who aren't willing to learn the mechanics.

With Dead Space I got my ass handed to me on Normal difficulty. I rarely play shooters; I was terrible at the game. Yet I don't seek out Dead Space fans to tell them the game is poor.

My point about "goodies vs baddies" is that the whole depth (religion, politics etc.) of good entertainment media such as Star Wars has a simple, easy-to-access front end for less hardcore fans. It doesn't have to be stripped down, it should just make sure that the depth of the media isn't essential for the user to enjoy it.

Star Wars is full of dumb, especially the prequels (the "political" writing almost as pathetic as the love story). Hardly a role model.

It's very much essential that the huge markets in Poland and Russia like the game. That presumably means the same themes and depth as in the written works. Too much hand-holding, and they won't be happy. Don't want to engage your brain? Play something else. There's plenty of casual games.

I'm not asking for pity, i'm just pointing out why I think companies such as BW are selling hardcore gamers short - because they are making the wrong adjustments in order to pull in more casual gamers. They are missing the reason's why casual gamers fail to get into games, and instead of giving easier access to those games like DA:O did, they decide to cut out a lot of the depth and concentrate on the more "fancy" stuff.

TW2's depth and difficulty was not an issue, it wad the fact it didn't have a gentler, less conveluted front end to it to ease more casual gamers into IMO, and by the likes of BW applying ME changes to such games that only dumbs down the experience for hardcore gamers, whilst not addressing the issue for casual ones.

Simply put, just add a layer of easy to digest icing on top of the current cake.

Addai67 wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

I'm not saying that the game should be dumbed down - I'm saying that it should be easier to get into.

I
see.  Well, a lot of people did complain about the prologue.  I think
I've said here or elsewhere that I don't like it, and I recall CDPR
saying that they would take criticisms of the game's lack of tutorial,
story obscurity and difficulty at the beginning into consideration.

That's good to hear then. I thought I was losing the plot when I played through it, but it's good to hear that others have raised concerns too as the building blocks of a story foundation just didn't seem to be there to start with.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 28 janvier 2013 - 10:13 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

billy the squid wrote...

And that's why it's been saturated to death and flogged. That basic entertainment principle is horsesh!te if there is no reasoning behind why it should be applied to this particular context.

Star Wars has no religious depth, political or any such thing, it's the typical good vs bad, any way you cut it. And were it not a classic I'd label it as rubbish. (See new films for a good example, frankly I'd rather lobotomise myself with a pencil that watch that lot again.)

A song of Ice and Fire is not the typical Good vs Evil, frankly most of the characters are complete bastards or at least amoral, and they are by far the most interesting and complex characters that I've read in a book, or seen in the current TV series. Tywin Lannister, Lord Varys, Tyrion, Eddard Stark etc. The same with the Witcher 2 the characters are distinctly grey in moral outlook, And the plot is machiavellian in political machenations and power plays. Very much a reflection of medieval political turmoil in Europe. 

To turn it into a simplistic mess would make it the same as any other game using the same trope of good vs bad, all of which stand in the shadow of JRR Tolkien's work which defined what high fantasy is. No one is going to beat that, so I favour those that don't try to, they make their own take.

Sorry, but "We're it not a classic, I'd label it as rubbish" just proves my point - that you can have "classic" entertainment despite it having a "dumb/rubbish" front end.

What you say about amoral people, choices and depth I totally agree with - but all that needs to be used in context and layed on the basic buildiing blocks of storytelling, which usually in these cases are us-them-situation-conflict-chain of events. Giving me a garbled opening, with no real starting point until the king is killed whilst throwing all this dialogue at me which reffers to people, places and events which I have no idea about is just bad.

THAT is what TW2 got wrong for me and one of the reasons it's such a laborious game. It wouldn't be so bad if the actual RPG aspects felt good, but most conversations which had options could have been auto-dialogued easily, as you just proceeded through them.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 28 janvier 2013 - 10:26 .

[abch4]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I was thinking about buying the witcher 1 and 2, should I skip number 1 and just go to 2? I hear things about number 1 not being that great but I usually don't ever play the second chapter before the first. Any recommendations would be nice.

Deffo play TW1 first! Both do differfent things better. I like them both equally. TW1 a great game though. Swamp may drive you nuts a little bit if you don't do as many quests in it as poss in one big swoop. Getting to lakeside is a big payoff though. Love that place

Modifié par hallidio, 28 janvier 2013 - 05:06 .

[Jan Bartkowicz]

Alright, a little off-topic question.

I'm visiting US for the first time. Austin, TX. I just found out that Dishonored developer Arkane is located here... so here's my question. Do you know anybody from the Arkane team? I would love to visit them, have a tour or whatever. I really enjoyed Dishonored, and believe there's a possibility people there know the Witcher 2 (in which I did writing and, apparently some cinematic design). Unfortunately I don't know anybody from Arkane. Any help would be very welcome.