235 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

Some reviewers thought Shadow Warrior was too hard to navigate cause it didn't have a linear style that modern fps uses. LMAO.

[bussinrounds]

Oh no...I might have to actually learn the system a bit before I play & understand the crpg. The horror !!

Ppl need to stick to the popamole.

[Jestina]

Modern gamers are dumber than ever. Well, actually I think the game developers are part of the problem since they rarely produce complex games now.

[Seagloom]

I'd say it's less a matter of intelligence or laziness than different priorities. Out of all the gamers I know, maybe three can spare the time to dig into a complex game on a regular basis. Some of them can't make the time to play more than a few hours weekly due to their responsibilities. When your goal is to sit down and unwind after a long day of whatever, you're unlikely to want to spend your precious little free time wrestling with mechanics.

Gaming is supposed to be an entertainment activity after all. Learning a game shouldn't be like classwork. Mastering a game perhaps, but not picking up the basics.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:08 .

[Fishy]

Seagloom wrote...

I'd say it's less a matter of intelligence or laziness than different priorities. Out of all the gamers I know, maybe three can spare the time to dig into a complex game on a regular basis. Some of them can't make the time to play more than a few hours weekly due to their responsibilities. When your goal is to sit down and unwind after a long day of whatever, you're unlikely to want to spend your precious little free time wrestling with mechanics.

Gaming is supposed to be an entertainment activity after all. Learning a game shouldn't be like classwork. Mastering a game perhaps, but not picking up the basics.

Than she/he should pick another game. Simple. Some people find it entertaining mastering a game. Not every game should be made for the casual just to please soccer mom who have 1 hours per month to play.

It would be like restraining people practicing more  than you do because eh . .She/he need to have a chance to defeat you. Some game are made for people who enjoy a deeper gaming mechanic. Some game like fighter have a deep learning curve. Should every advanced player stop progressing/practicing because soccer mom can't beat them ?

Some game are competitive and some other have deep mechanic and roleplaying attribute. Some game are especially made for casual player.

Modifié par Suprez30, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:21 .

[Jestina]

And that's the problem...they make EVERYTHING for casual players now. In the past there was a good mix of games for mindless entertainment and games for the hardcore players.

[Seagloom]

Suprez30 wrote...

Than she/he should pick another game. Simple. Some people find it entertaining mastering a game. Not every game should be made for the casual just to please soccer mom who have 1 hours per month to play.

I'm not talking about mastering, though. I'm talking about learning basic mechanics. It's understandable that getting everything you can out of a game will require effort.

That doesn't mean I think every game should go out of its way to be player friendly. The Witcher 2 and Dark Souls were pretty vague about their mechanics, and people seem to enjoy that. What I take issue with is the idea that if a person finds a classic of the genre too hard to get into, they're automatically considered dumb or lazy.

It can't possibly be that the game in question is simply archaic, and may not hold the universal appeal its fans believe it should.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:22 .

[OdanUrr]

I've never played a BG game so I've no idea how complex or not they are.

[bussinrounds]

That's what other genres were for, pick up and play type games. But lets make everything similar now instead. Who needs diversity anyway ?

Media and developers help reinforce the notion that learning a rpg system is so difficult and that we're better off spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement bs that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #56478476495

Modifié par bussinrounds, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:22 .

[Pedrak]

Seagloom wrote...

I'd say it's less a matter of intelligence or laziness than different priorities. Out of all the gamers I know, maybe three can spare the time to dig into a complex game on a regular basis. Some of them can't make the time to play more than a few hours weekly due to their responsibilities.

That's no excuse for professional reviewers though. Also, as far as anecdotal evidence goes, we must have different experiences, because plenty of gamers I know IRL or on the web complain when old games are "too hard" and yet claim to have played, say, Mass Effect like 10 times (in fact, the great majority of posters I meet on boards like this one appear to regularly replay games, something I personally never do), or spend hours playing online FPSs. So they do find times for those, but not for reading a manual or mastering "intimidating" concepts like armor or THAC0. 

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but don't tell me they don't have time for it. They just prefer simpler entertainment, which is fine.

Also, maybe rose-tinted nostalgia goggles are affecting my perceptions, but I really don't recall IE games being that hard. Certainly not "Temple of the Elemental Evil" hard. Again, I played them knowing NOTHING about RPGs and tabletop games, and they were challenging, but nothing more. It's not Wittgenstein, people. You venture in a dangerous area when you're still too weak? Too bad, beasts will tear you apart. Better than an Oblivion-like level scaling obscenity. You create a warrior with uselessly high intelligence and charisma and 12 of strength and constitution? He'll get squashed like a bug. That'll teach you.

Also, that people need to be guided to choose the "right" party because there are too many possible companions and they are unable to form a functional group really defies belief. Do they need a tutorial stating you need a few tanks, a spellcaster, a healer, a rogue...? I do have to wonder how these people approach problem-solving in real life.

Modifié par Pedrak, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[bussinrounds]

Exactly. Why does every bs criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it so difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Wizardry ? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of you know what. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the problem here? That you have to figure out how the attacks, weapons, spells, classes, combinations work ?  That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety f****n click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!" 

  Besides, that was half the fun of those games, experimenting with things.  Not just being brought along for the 'ride'.  

Modifié par bussinrounds, 28 novembre 2013 - 07:34 .

[Cyonan]

As far as basic game mechanics go, they should be all explained in-game.

Yes I could go read the manual or look on Google and no, I don't consider it good game design to tell me to look outside of your game for basic information about how it plays. Older RPGs can be really bad for this.

As for difficulty, I have noticed a lot of gamers today have the mentality that when they fail at a game the response is "This game is hard, <insert whatever killed them> is OP and should be nerfed" rather than "This game is hard, I should get better and learn how to deal with <insert whatever killed them>".

I feel like that is what difficulty levels are supposed to be used for, however today the case seems to be either A. Progression rewards are tied to difficulty level(typically MP games) or B. People complain that hard is "too hard" despite it being completely optional.

[bEVEsthda]

Seagloom wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

He is - they are, actually: it's more than one reviewer - also complaining about other stuff, though: ex. don't know which loot to keep, which to get rid of, which companions are better... Something I don't believe a game should tell you, as it's part of the fun finding it out. That's just lazy, for me.

Not everyone shares the same beliefs. Expectations can differ. Blame it on conditioning from modern games or personality quirks. It is what it is. You having a certain preference here does not make it right. It only makes it yours.

I beg to differ.
Choosing which loot, choosing which companions, is a very large part of the actual 'playing the game'.
And this is "RIGHT". For a role-playing  game. But there is no single "right" way to do anything of this. It's your choice, which you should live with.
Loot is utterly meaningless for anything else but making kids feel rewarded, if it doesn't participate in the gameplay. Same with choosing companions.
I find all this criticism as weak in mind as the once heard complaint that a certain game (Morrowind) didn't tell him what he was "supposed to do".
Same with creating the player char. Same with silent PC, which doesn't steal your PC's emotions and voice. The entire point of playing a cRPG is to make it your PC's own journey and story. Some of you want to watch a movie, I say, and just do your precious combat, and your precious 'Bosses'. That is indeed your "certain preference", and, correctly, it isn't my "certain preference". That part is true.
But that sort of games can't ever be role-playing games. There's a line drawn in the sand. It doesn't matter that some, Square Enix, and lately Bioware have put the label "RPG" on such games, and try to muddle the water with talk about that label and that we shouldn't discuss what it means. That label has been stolen. That's all. Those games still don't turn into role-playing games. There's a very distinct and clear difference. As I said, there's a line drawn.

[SlottsMachine]

Cyonan wrote...

As for difficulty, I have noticed a lot of gamers today have the mentality that when they fail at a game the response is "This game is hard, <insert whatever killed them> is OP and should be nerfed" rather than "This game is hard, I should get better and learn how to deal with <insert whatever killed them>".

That may be true in some cases, but replaying sections of a game over and over again do to a trial and error game style isn't exactly enjoyable either. 

[Seagloom]

@Pedrak

They're not that hard, no. In fact the original Baldur's Gate was the only older CRPG I had any real difficulty figuring out.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not arguing challenge, but accessibility. In my opinion a well designed game, RPG or not, at least explains enough basic mechanics to the player to send them on their way. Now, I know older titles such as Baldur's Gate, and to a greater degree, Arcanum, handled all this in the manual. If we were still in 1999, I might agree it's lazy to not even try poring through it.

However, this is not 1999. Over a decade has passed since Baldur's Gate was released, and I no longer believe shoddy tutorials and poor documentation within a game can be justified. Less so with the ever expanding availability of digital content which will inevitably replace retail boxes, no matter how much some diehards want to cling to them.

Fact is, Baldur's Gate's approach is antiquated. People, reviewers included, will have different expectations from a game. Baldur's Gate isn't going to get a free pass solely because it was a genre defining title many folks adore.

While that reviewer could have stood to experiment more and acknowledge his personal biases, I can't exactly blame him either. It takes a certain mindset to do a retro review--because make no mistake, Enhanced Edition or not, it is still an older game with all the attendant issues that brings.

[Cainhurst Crow]

This review sounds like a valid and fair assessment of someone coming from a neutral, non-biased standpoint looking at how these games play and present themselves.

What it sounds like however is that you, the OP, have a bias for heavily DnD based rpg's and have tons and tons of experience with the system, and you expect everyone else to have that same experience and come at it from that same standpoint.

It's like if I showed star wars to someone who wasn't a big fan of science fiction or fantasy, then got mad at them when they didn't like the sci fi elements and pointed out some of the problems the films had.

[Seagloom]

bEVEsthda wrote...

*snip*

My answer to this is in the earlier post that you quoted. The funny thing is, I actually share your opinion of what an RPG is to a degree. In my opinion an RPG is defined by mechanics, and not simply "playing a role" or any of the bajillion other reasons I've seen trotted out on forums like this.

However, just because I feel that way doesn't mean how someone else feels what an RPG should be is wrong. What defines a proper RPG is not an objective truth.

I suppose that is where I shall always part company with the majority of players that cherished the same classic titles I did. I prefer to adapt and grow with my hobby. I want to see where it goes and what could happen. I see no reason to cling to the past just because it was a happy one. And I see even less reason to put people down by claiming what they enjoy today is false or trash, solely because it is not a mirror of what I appreciated years ago.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 novembre 2013 - 07:26 .

[Cyonan]

General Slotts wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

As for difficulty, I have noticed a lot of gamers today have the mentality that when they fail at a game the response is "This game is hard, <insert whatever killed them> is OP and should be nerfed" rather than "This game is hard, I should get better and learn how to deal with <insert whatever killed them>".

That may be true in some cases, but replaying sections of a game over and over again do to a trial and error game style isn't exactly enjoyable either. 

That's what the difficulty levels are supposed to be for, though.

There is nothing wrong with admitting you aren't good enough to beat a certain section and turning down the difficulty.

[bEVEsthda]

OdanUrr wrote...

I've never played a BG game so I've no idea how complex or not they are.

They're not complex at all
The point is not to "master" the game. The point of playing it is to have an experience that comes from of the choices you make.
BG was the first cRPG I ever played. I didn't read the manual at the start or before. Occasionally, I did read a section of the manual, like a reference book, typically when I felt I needed a new kind of spell, to counter something, or things like reviving a companion.

Having finally played through all of BG and expansions, I had sort of read most of the manual, but very fragmentary and not completely.

[xAmilli0n]

Seagloom wrote...

Fact is, Baldur's Gate's approach is antiquated. People, reviewers included, will have different expectations from a game. Baldur's Gate isn't going to get a free pass solely because it was a genre defining title many folks adore.

While that reviewer could have stood to experiment more and acknowledge his personal biases, I can't exactly blame him either. It takes a certain mindset to do a retro review--because make no mistake, Enhanced Edition or not, it is still an older game with all the attendant issues that brings.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this.  There are many games just as good, and far from casual, that are easier to get into.  Why waste your precious time?

[CroGamer002]

Friend of mine bought me BG1, when it was like 1.5 Euros on Steam sale.

And I hate this game, due to how it fails to explain how to play it.


How in the world I can enjoy the game, if game itself doesn't teach me to learn the basics at least?
Oh and character creation can kiss my ass!

I should not do hours of research online, just to learn how to create a damn character!

[bEVEsthda]

Seagloom wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

*snip*

My answer to this is in the earlier post that you quoted. The funny thing is, I actually share your opinion of what an RPG is to a degree. In my opinion an RPG is defined by mechanics, and not simply "playing a role" or any of the bajillion other reasons I've seen trotted out on forums like this.

However, just because I feel that way doesn't mean how someone else feels what an RPG should be is wrong. What defines a proper RPG is not an objective truth.

I suppose that is where I shall always part company with the majority of players that cherished the same classic titles I did. I prefer to adapt and grow with my hobby. I want to see where it goes and what could happen. I see no reason to cling to the past just because it was a happy one. And I see even less reason to put people down by claiming what they enjoy today is false or trash, solely because it is not a mirror of what I appreciated years ago.

Thankyou for this answer. It's a good one and illuminates parts which could well do with it.

My opinion is the opposite: The actual mechanics are irrelevant. That is actually a detail which IMO hasn't been explored enough. The one thing which is relevant is the role-playing. That's the fundamental reason why many of us are playing these games. The fact that many other games include mechanical elements which are similar or same as "RPG-elements" may make them "RPGs", as current stolen label terminology goes, but it doesn't make them role-playing games. If you don't understand the difference, I suppose I'll have to write many, many more words, but I kinda hope you would?

I play other games. All sorts. First person shooters for instance. Like CoD, for instance. I belong to the much scorned "CoD-crowd". I'm fine with people playing and liking other sorts of games. Any kind of game. I likely have played them myself. I'm not fine with that some people think role-playing games should not be, and instead be turned into the same tired ol' bash-the-baddies-collect-the-glowing-jewels-whittle-down-the-Boss-next-level game-paradigm as almost everything else. And incidently, that particular game is one I'm thoroughly tired of. Really. But you're right, I shouldn't put people down by claiming what they enjoy today (and since the ancient beginnings of videogaming, since it's still the same game) is false or trash. - But i don't!
What I do is to point out the fact that some games are not role-playing games!  It is a fact that they don't offer that. They may be called RPGs, but that doesn't really help, does it? If the essential experience is missing?

There are also other essentially different experiences to have in games, you know.
The role-playing experience is one. The model-railroader experience is another. Empire-building another. Bridge-building simulation another. And so it goes on... Or should...

[Pedrak]

Mesina2 wrote...

How in the world I can enjoy the game, if game itself doesn't teach me to learn the basics at least?
Oh and character creation can kiss my ass!

I should not do hours of research online, just to learn how to create a damn character!

Frankly, there's absolutely no need to do that to create a BG character - unless you're trying some solo speed run, or stuff like that. You might not create a perfect char the first time you try, but the game - even deliberately ignoring the manual - tells you enough to make a decent, functional one.

[Beerfish]

I feel bad that the combats style of new games is all about damage dealt and almost never missing. I say this as an old DnD player whop could really relate to BG1. The game as a whole could be very tough if you did not use all resources available to you. I loved THACO. )

[bEVEsthda]

Seagloom wrote...

@Pedrak

They're not that hard, no. In fact the original Baldur's Gate was the only older CRPG I had any real difficulty figuring out.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not arguing challenge, but accessibility. In my opinion a well designed game, RPG or not, at least explains enough basic mechanics to the player to send them on their way. Now, I know older titles such as Baldur's Gate, and to a greater degree, Arcanum, handled all this in the manual. If we were still in 1999, I might agree it's lazy to not even try poring through it.

However, this is not 1999. Over a decade has passed since Baldur's Gate was released, and I no longer believe shoddy tutorials and poor documentation within a game can be justified. Less so with the ever expanding availability of digital content which will inevitably replace retail boxes, no matter how much some diehards want to cling to them.

Fact is, Baldur's Gate's approach is antiquated. People, reviewers included, will have different expectations from a game. Baldur's Gate isn't going to get a free pass solely because it was a genre defining title many folks adore.

While that reviewer could have stood to experiment more and acknowledge his personal biases, I can't exactly blame him either. It takes a certain mindset to do a retro review--because make no mistake, Enhanced Edition or not, it is still an older game with all the attendant issues that brings.

I think BG is pretty accessible, but I may not be a terribly good judge of that, today. And of course, I haven't tried this new re-issue yet, but the original BG did feature a tutorial, and that was all I needed to start off.
And yes, of course BG is antiquated. But what I would mean with that, is the gameplay mechanics. ...But those live on in so called "RPGs". Somewhat changed maybe, modified, but still the same.

I also think the point was a bit different. The point of this thread, I mean. That the criticism attacked perceived 'flaws' which actually are features, part of the role-playing experience. The reviewer obviously thinks he's playing a different kind of game. Mindless and lazy is a fair assessment I think.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:41 .