239 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

While I do think that BG type experiences have a lower ceiling in terms of audience sales, I do think that the story-oriented gaming has a lower ceiling than most would expect. Even supposed mega-hits like Last of Us and Bioshock: Infinite seem to plateau at the 5-6 million mark, around where the Mass Effect series is per game. 

 

X-COM: Enemy Unknown as a strategy game with progression elements and mechanics similar to what the OP suggests has probably sold in that ball-park as well. So it's not completely out of order to suggest that a BG-type game can get big numbers. 

 

That said, I think Might and Magic X - Legacy is much closer to the type of game the OP would want. A game with mid-tier production values and low budget compared to AAA behemoths and a niche, but sustainable audience. 

 

The upcoming Kickstarter games also seems to follow this model, so we'll see how Project Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2 and Torment: Tides of Numenera end up (alongside others).

 

I am playing Might and Magic X- Legacy and Eschalon III right now. I will be picking up Wasteland 2 (Sargent Level),(I am thinking about getting the Beta), Pillars of Eternity (Project Eternity) along with other promising games that meet the requirements outlined in the OP..

[Realmzmaster]

Yes.

 

I never played them - they were before my time - and to be blunt I think the market for those sort of games is considerably smaller than people who like story-driven experiences, or people who just like hitting things in the face with a sword.

 

There are certainly ways in which Bioware can and should be bringing back old mechanics, but I don't think many fans of those games realise how niche they are today. 

 

If Baldur's Gate was enormously popular with a massive audience, after all, studios would still be making RPG games with that level of complexity. If those games are made at all now, it's for a smaller audience and *certainly* not the mainstream, which is what Dragon Age is trying to hit.

 

Are saying that gamers do not have the patience to play games with that level of complexity? Or they do not  care to play games with that level of complexity? So basically they want to see an interactive movie with a simple level of combat?

[metatheurgist]

Which means Bioware should abandon making games like the Baldur's Gate series? Are you saying that games like the Ultima series or Wizardry woulkd not appeal to gamers today?

 
The market has changed. In the time of BG, Ultima, Wizardy, Bards Tale, Phantasy, RPGs were made for people that wanted to play simulations of actual RPGs. Now RPGs are made for people that "play a role" in a game with RPG elements. The market used to be computer and math geeks, now it's anyone that grabs a controller.

[CybAnt1]

The thing is, that's kind of a fractured history. I would argue the games of the 80s like Ultima, Wizardy, Bard's Tale were just dungeon crawlers. They had no other roleplaying elements beyond combat. Might & Magic X: Legacy brings you to the 80s again, but not the 90s. It's really just a noveau-retro dungeon crawler from that era, made palatable for running on modern machines. 

 

The "other half" (dialogue, interactions, "choices n consequences") that so many of us are used to at this point really only started in the late 90s with Fallout. That's the part that was harder to translate to a computer, so it took longer. 

 

It's really only 90s-early Aughts games that come close to capturing both sides of the RP experience, the combat of PnP, but also its other roleplaying elements. 

 

I like both. Bioware was really good at fusing both in BG2, it's why it still has people enjoying it today. 

 

My math side does occasionally have me crunching character builds & stats, and my literary side has me enjoying the rich story and branching narratives. I'm sorta a two-sided guy as far as that stuff goes.   Thing is, what I want both halves of the game to have is not just complexity, for its own sake, but DEPTH. Depth of narrative/characterization/ability to enter the inner life of the protagonist (that's dialogue), and tactical/strategic depth of the combat, that requires thinking - like chess - rather than merely reacting - like Space Invaders.

[Jorji Costava]

Looking through the OP's suggestions, and the one I have the most sympathy with is the suggestion to make healing more difficult. Healing mechanics in RPG's always struck me as rather tacky. Can you imagine dudes casting healing spells at each other in the middle of a pitched battle sequence in a movie, for instance? Every time the hero gets near death, one of his or her buddies casts a healing spell, bringing the hero back from the brink; now iterate this process several times. Dunno, just seems kinda lame, somehow.

 

On the other hand, I understand that most of the alternatives involve lots and lots of frustration. To my knowledge, only the Jagged Alliance series handled healing in an even semi-realistic way. In the JA games, just getting injured was as much pain in the butt as dying would be in most other games. As a result of injury, you could have less actions points (meaning you could do less each turn), your overall combat effectiveness (accuracy, mobility, etc.) would decrease, and you would continue to take bleeding damage until another squad mate applied first aid. In combat, first aid took several turns depending on the severity of the injury, didn't recover hit points (it only prevented their further loss) and which you could be shot while performing. Actually recovering hit points required designating a squad mate to perform surgery, an act which had to be performed out of game and could leave the injured squad mate out for a mission or two. That system is, well, not for everyone.

[Realmzmaster]

Actually Ultima IV (1985)  is hailed as one of best crpgs because its focus is not on combat but the development of the protagonist in the virtuous life and become a spiritual leader to the people. The protagonist has to master the eight virtues and gain access to the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom becoming the Avatar  

 

Ultima V actually had gamers using Astronomy to track the enemy Shadowlords (Falsehood, Cowardice and Hatred). The Shadowlords each have an effect if in a city. The Shadowlord of Falsehood causes the populace to lie and steal. The Shadowlord of Cowardice has people running away from the party and the Shadowlord of Hatred had people attacking the party. The Ultimas were not simple dungeon crawlers. 

The choices and consequences begin in Ultima IV at character creation. Ultima four had a more unique way of creating the character. The choices made in the game determined how well of a spiritual leader the protagonist became.

 

I agree that Wizardry, Might and Magic or the Bard's Tale are closer to dungeon crawlers but not the Ultimas especially 4 and 5.

 

Also during the same period was the father of Fallout, Wasteland. Wasteland (1988) had companions who would refuse to do certain tasks or give up certain items. The game was full of choice and consequences.. Wasteland also allowed a variety of methods to solve problems. For example a gate could be pick locked, climbed, open with a crowbar using strength or blown apart with a rocket.

 

The 80's had it share of crpgs with choices, consequences and depth.

[CybAnt1]

I agree that Wizardry, Might and Magic or the Bard's Tale are closer to dungeon crawlers but not the Ultimas especially 4 and 5.

 

 

I'll confess my memory is hazy on the Ultimas, but I believe 4-6 had only a very, very simple "keyword" based dialogue system. VII was the first one to have actual dialogue trees. So yes, they were beyond dungeon crawling, but 7 (1992) was the first to have dialogue like we've come to know it (well, until wheels came along). 

 

I also don't think Wasteland (1988) had a dialogue system, either, though it did have a persistent world, and changes to that world were saved and stored. 

[Realmzmaster]

I'll confess my memory is hazy on the Ultimas, but I believe 4-6 had only a very, very simple "keyword" based dialogue system. VII was the first one to have actual dialogue trees. So yes, they were beyond dungeon crawling, but 7 (1992) was the first to have dialogue like we've come to know it (well, until wheels came along). 

 

I also don't think Wasteland (1988) had a dialogue system, either, though it did have a persistent world, and changes to that world were saved and stored. 

 

Actually Wasteland had a paragraph system like Tunnels and Trolls solitaire adventures or the Barbarian Prince by Dwarfstar. The game would direct the gamer to a particular paragraph in the booklet. Also work somewhat as copy protection. Yes, it did have a persistent world as you stated. Changes were saved and stored.  

[KaiserShep]

Are saying that gamers do not have the patience to play games with that level of complexity? Or they do not  care to play games with that level of complexity? So basically they want to see an interactive movie with a simple level of combat?

 

I would say yes on all counts, in general anyway. Even DA:O, as much as it may be considered the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, is pretty much the same way. For all the tactics, potion and poison making and other RPG components, it still had plenty of cinematic flair. Dragon Age has never been terribly complex, so adding more complexity to future games than what we had with the very first game would not really befit the series. Now, raising the difficulty level so that one has to be mindful to micromanage lingering health issues and risk permanently dying is one thing, but to have it as a default would be a terrible idea.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Are saying that gamers do not have the patience to play games with that level of complexity? Or they do not  care to play games with that level of complexity? So basically they want to see an interactive movie with a simple level of combat?

 

Yes. Just like trying to use a movie techniques that worked well 10 years ago, you're going to find that audiences are much less receptive then they were a decade ago.

 

There is a place for those games, a niche market of nostalgia driven fans who would love to have those game mechanics. But they are now a minority of the fanbase, arguably a ever dwindling minority, being replaced by a new generation of gamers.

 

Baulder's Gate 1 I believe was relaunched under the baulder's gate enhanced edition, and had major criticisms leveled at it's gameplay and functionality which were, from what I heard, mostly from the old school way of doing things. The fact is quality is now assessed by accessibility and ease of playing the game, not on determination of a player to slug through a difficult system in order to play the game.
 

[AppealToReason]

If they don't include the most advanced bladder management system or I won't buy the game!

[ElitePinecone]

Are saying that gamers do not have the patience to play games with that level of complexity? Or they do not  care to play games with that level of complexity? So basically they want to see an interactive movie with a simple level of combat?

 

I don't think we should pidgeonhole "gamers" into liking or disliking any one thing, for starters. There are different audiences for different types of games.

 

But I think the number of gamers who are willing to spend hours trying to master complex mechanics or who would actually like having to eat every ten minutes is significantly smaller than people who play games like Dragon Age for the companion interactions, or the thrill of progressing a character, or exploration. The demographics and audience of games have changed over the past twenty years or so, and developers have recognised that by adjusting the types of games that they make.

 

Certainly there are still lots of people who like crunching numbers in RPGs, and they might even tend to be more hard-core players - perhaps on PC - but at some point making games too complex will just turn people off entirely. 

 

You could argue that something like Skyrim hit the sweet spot, given that its sales are much higher than apparently even the developers expected - and it seems to be the target that Bioware are now trying to hit.

[ElitePinecone]

 
The market has changed. In the time of BG, Ultima, Wizardy, Bards Tale, Phantasy, RPGs were made for people that wanted to play simulations of actual RPGs. Now RPGs are made for people that "play a role" in a game with RPG elements. The market used to be computer and math geeks, now it's anyone that grabs a controller.

 

This is a much better version of what I was trying to say, yeah.

[smoke and mirrors]

If that is the case why does it matter if there are realistic armors and weapons? Or are you saying you want a certain amount of realism in the game that appeals to you.

 

Realistic armors don`t worry me one way or the other it is a fantasy game ( queue chainmail bikini `s   )  . I love RPG  games with swords and magic , i am not against your ideas maybe as someone said nightmare mode is the place for them .

[Realmzmaster]

 
The market has changed. In the time of BG, Ultima, Wizardy, Bards Tale, Phantasy, RPGs were made for people that wanted to play simulations of actual RPGs. Now RPGs are made for people that "play a role" in a game with RPG elements. The market used to be computer and math geeks, now it's anyone that grabs a controller.

 

I beg to differ BG1 and Bg2 by the comments of a lot of people on this forum is when they picked up crpgs. The players came from all walks of life not just computer and math geeks. That is a misconception. The people in my gaming groups included everyone from athletes to beauty contestants. The DM did most of the heavy lifting and mechanics by making an environment that everyone could role play. 

I try not to generalize that much.  If I am not wrong Robin Williams, Wil Wheaton, Tim Duncan, Vin Diesel and Steven Colbert are players of D & D.

[AlanC9]

Bioware also used it with BG1 and BG2 unless the character could be resurrected which was usually not the case.

Usually not the case? After about level 3 in BG1 you would have the cash for a rez or two, and you stop needing cash at all in BG2 almost immediately. Chunking was pretty rare in my games.

Also note that BG2 introduced non-killable companions. Imoen cannot die until Spellhold. Wing Commander 3 style, since her immunity turns off after her plot role is complete.

[AlanC9]

DA makes Morrigan, Anders and Varric integral to the plot. to the point the story cannot continue without them. Anders in particular is not integral to DA2 story. A new companion could have easily taken his place. That was fan service.

Is fan service the right concept there?

Sure, Bio could have subbed in another character if Anders was dead. (Assuming they actually like permadeath on the merits, of course, but this is a hypothetical.) Similarly, the DR could have been about someone other than Morrigan. I think this would have been less interesting in both cases, though. It strikes me that you're proposing a fairly large resource expenditure to enable second-best outcomes. I suppose this would be worthwhile if I actually thought permadeath was valuable.

[AlanC9]

Party members could be resurrected. If the PC died, it was game over. I learned that the hard way recently playing BG2: Enhanced Edition, when I noted one of the enhancements was not changing that. 

How are they rationalizing that? That other Bhallspawn is still resurrectable, right? Or is it just a gameplay thing?

[JimboGee]

I do think however certain types of games should be complicated. Take a look at dwarf fortress for example. A game that has been in development for a number of years. That game is super complex but once you work it out it's not so bad. Some people are put off by that other by the simplistic graphics but the game does not apologise for that, nor does it make any attempt to appeal to everyone. You either like it or you don't.

 

This is a problem that modern RPG's suffer from. Dragon age claims to be the spiritual succesor to Baldurs Gate. In many ways it was. In others it was less so. Dragon age 2 tried to fix things that weren't broken but in doing so opened the game up to criticism such as hack'n'slash or for me the casual gamer. Surely a game that is more complex takes you longer to complete and this gives you more value for money?

 

RPG's should not cater to everyones taste.They shouldn't be easy and they shouldn't try to be something theyre not. I, for example don't really like The devil may cry series. It's just not for me. I wouldn't ask them to put stuff in there to make it appeal to me more because the developers clearly feel the game works as it is. That's not to say it can't be improved though.

 

In short, you can please some of the people some of the time, but all of the people none of the time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes. Just like trying to use a movie techniques that worked well 10 years ago, you're going to find that audiences are much less receptive then they were a decade ago.

 

There is a place for those games, a niche market of nostalgia driven fans who would love to have those game mechanics. But they are now a minority of the fanbase, arguably a ever dwindling minority, being replaced by a new generation of gamers.

 

Baulder's Gate 1 I believe was relaunched under the baulder's gate enhanced edition, and had major criticisms leveled at it's gameplay and functionality which were, from what I heard, mostly from the old school way of doing things. The fact is quality is now assessed by accessibility and ease of playing the game, not on determination of a player to slug through a difficult system in order to play the game.

To be fair, the BG:EE had "improvements" that I think made the game worse.  My first attempt to play the Enhanced Edition resulted in me immediately figuring out how to get the original game to run on my PC so that I could play the superior (and older) version.

 

And no matter what modern producers say, Battleship Potemkin is a great film.

[CybAnt1]

I think it's a game-nature thing . You are the Bhaalspawn - it's your journey. Everybody else around you is just an extra. After all, there were 16 companions to choose from. So your journey ends when you die.

 

The one thing I really wish they fixed, as I don't know where the hell my original BG2 manual is in my closet buried under "box stuff," is that I can never remember what spells correspond to what funky little tiny icon, and on my iPad (which is how I'm playing on now, kinda funky) the tooltips for the spell icons don't seem to come up using the touch interface. Which squiggly little graphic links to which spell or ability? Annoying as crap.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll confess my memory is hazy on the Ultimas, but I believe 4-6 had only a very, very simple "keyword" based dialogue system. VII was the first one to have actual dialogue trees. So yes, they were beyond dungeon crawling, but 7 (1992) was the first to have dialogue like we've come to know it (well, until wheels came along). 

I have often argued that those keyword-based dialogue systems were better, and further that the full dialogue option systems like BG and KotOR and DAO could be played in the same way, viewing the options themselves as abstractions of what was actually said (just as the keywords were abstractions).

 

The two systems are not meaningfully different, I think.  But the modern games with their voiced protagonists and paraphrases are a huge departure from keyword systems.

 

What was important about the Ultima games (particularly 4 & 5) was about choices, and that's what's important in every roleplaying game.  The game allows the player to make choices on behalf of his character.  Where to go, what to do, which problems to solve, how to approach those problems.  That's what the Ultima games did well (certainly 4-7.5).  That should always be the primary focus of RPG development.

 

It's not important that games use the same old systems, as long as they allow the player to do the same things within the new systems.  My difficulty with the newer games is that I can't play them the same way as I did before.

[ElitePinecone]

I beg to differ BG1 and Bg2 by the comments of a lot of people on this forum is when they picked up crpgs. The players came from all walks of life not just computer and math geeks. That is a misconception. The people in my gaming groups included everyone from athletes to beauty contestants. The DM did most of the heavy lifting and mechanics by making an environment that everyone could role play. 

I try not to generalize that much.  If I am not wrong Robin Williams, Wil Wheaton, Tim Duncan, Vin Diesel and Steven Colbert are players of D & D.

 

I think it is possible, though, to look at this forum (or even look at *any* gaming forum) and think that the people here are representative or typical of most Dragon Age players - when I don't think that's the case. I have no way of proving that, and nobody does until someone goes out and does some sampling of BSN users, but I suspect that people here are extremely unusual when compared to the other few million players who picked up DA:O and DA2.

 

So while one can make a case for certain features because they're popular here, I think there's a risk in assuming that the preferences and wishes of the most hardcore players correspond to many other people. You could argue that Bioware have misjudged their audience before (and it certainly seemed to happen with DA2, to a surprisingly large degree) but I genuinely don't think there's a huge silent constituency of old BG players who would be ecstatic about all the realism and difficulty changes you outlned above. 

[Taleroth]

The issue of realism in fantasy is completely separate from this. The game isn't a sim. If it were to consider that level of realism, then any wound would potentially be fatal, and even the ones that weren't could be career ending. That's not really the type of game Dragon Age sets out to be.

[Realmzmaster]

The issue of realism in fantasy is completely separate from this. The game isn't a sim. If it were to consider that level of realism, then any wound would potentially be fatal, and even the ones that weren't could be career ending. That's not really the type of game Dragon Age sets out to be.

 

Actually the original intent of a crpg was as a simulation of the tabletop experience. The computer and game system acted as the DM with the game creating the character or characters.

 

. That is why most of the terminology, settings and game mechanics come from the P n P role playing systems. Many of the designers of crpgs have at one time or another been players of the P N P rpg systems from D & D to G.U.R.P.S.

 

The basic battle system in D & D came from the Chainmail rules. Chainmail was a fantasy miniature wargame. Since it roots were in a wargame and the battle system followed those rules death was permanent. D & D allowed for resurrection with the proper spell, scroll or item. Other rpgs did not.

 

If a character died in one of the P n P campaigns the player of that character re-rolled a new character and rejoined the party. The DM or group would decide if the new character came in at the same level as the old character or at a lower level. The new character would have the base equipment for the class. and have to journey to meet the party depending on the DM.

 

After joining the party the new character would receive the equipment of the old character unless the other members decided to split the items.

 

Since the rpg rules required sleeping, eating, inventory management and preparation so did the many of the crpgs.

The rpgs and crpgs appealed to a wide variety of people. Not just math and computer geeks.

 

Now if gamers wish to embrace more of what I call rpg-lite mechanics then that is fine. I will continue to present my points on what I think an crpg should encompass. The developers are free to listen or ignore.