480 réponses à ce sujet

[WillieStyle]

The presence of self-selection bias is PRECISELY what makes them too small of a sample size to be statistically significant. Political polls (respectable ones, at least) determine their sample population in a concerted yet random method - that's why they can use a sample size of .0001% of the population and still get accurate results. Otherwise it's comparing apples to orange crates.

 

Self-selection bias cannot be resolved by increasing the sample size.  The sample could be half the relevant population and self-selection bias would still skew things. Bottom line, the number voters in these player's choice polls is sufficient to create a statistically significant sample.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "less complex" games. The idea that more complexity is a better thing is an opinion. At the end of the day the average age of a gamer is in the mid to late 30s (heh, I'm not QUITE there yet.) These people have stressful jobs, complex relationships, and very real problems, they also no longer have the time or the luxuries people had in their youth. When these people want to sit down and play a game, their main goal is to be entertained. They're not looking for complexity, they've got plenty to deal with as it is, they're just something they can pick up and sink some time into. It's why romance and speculative-fiction are the highest selling book genres, and it's why games like Skyrim and Diablo sells buckets.

 

Hear, hear. I'm pretty sure people with actual problems in their lives don't get that salty over video games not meeting their exact expectations. Many people just want to pick up and enjoy a game after a day's work.

 

And I'm not really talking of these here forums, but in general. There's places far, far worse than the BSN in the darkest reaches of the internet when it comes to people taking games far too seriously.

[KaiserShep]

And I'm not really talking of these here forums, but in general. There's places far, far worse than the BSN in the darkest reaches of the internet when it comes to people taking games far too seriously.

 

That's for sure. For all BSN's foibles, one could do way, way worse.

[DragonKingReborn]

hmm, maybe for some...
I think both closed and open minds and a rigid or flexible approach to change can be found among gamers of all ages.
 
For players who have gone through several hardware generations, it's easy to feel really grateful
not to be playing games that look like this any more ! :
 

 
This is Kings Quest III (1986) - which I played -, although it was a next-gen graphics success (really)
some reviewers preferred to replay Kings Quest I or that Kings Quest III be more like Kings Quest I.
(things never change)
 

 
Not abacus, I was right at the end of the slide rule (slipstick) generation.
 
/end of 'old git derailment' 2 ...

Oh, my God. That pic took me back. Total off-topic, but last year I picked up Quest for Glory on GoG. Nostalgia plus.

I'm 36, so I guess Andraste and I are the young-uns in the I'm old and liked Inquisition group. Guess it's a "reborn" thing...

[KaiserShep]

I'm only 32. Is there a specific threshold I have to cross before I can shake my fist at the clouds?

[rapscallioness]

I'm only 32. Is there a specific threshold I have to cross before I can shake my fist at the clouds?

 

Nah, in fact most young ppl do that these days.

[ThreeF]

Yes, but ME's combat is based around the player aiming a gun. If you, as a player, are terrible at aiming a gun, you'd fail at combat, even with fully maxed out skills. If you, as a player, can master the controls and aim a sniper rifle just, right adjusting for the trail the game puts in because your character has zero skill with sniper rifles, you can headshot and one-shot-kill bad guys from insane distances. 

 

That, to me, is more "action" oriented, at least in terms of divorcing the player from the RPG/stat elements of the game.

 

Not in my experience.

 

I'm terrible at action games, aiming guns, etc. ME1 made me love to be a sniper, I was so freaking good at it there from the get go, not because I was suddenly  proficient at aiming or mastered the controls, but because the game was helping someone as crappy as me to aim . 

 

This is why I also don't understand the whole "it's an action game" thing, if it was I wouldn't be able to play it.

[AllThatJazz]

I'm only 32. Is there a specific threshold I have to cross before I can shake my fist at the clouds?

I mean, it would help if you've uttered one of the following phrases at least once:

'In my day ...'
'Get off my lawn'
'I remember when all this was fields' (this is the one you need for real old people kudos)

... But eh., not absolutely necessary. Shake away!

[AlanC9]

That's fair. Still, at least ME and Jade Empire were fun as action games - I'm not against action games. But party-based RPGs that try to ALSO incorporate action elements just rub me the VERY wrong way. Nothing about DA:I's system leaves me with any type of positive feeling. I love corny ScyFy channel movies. I love Isaac Asimov. I would be appalled to see a corny ScyFy channel movie rendition of a classic Asimov story.

So the problem with DAI is that it isn't enough of an action game? ME and JE get a pass because you don't classify them as RPGs. So if DA:I was more action-y, it'd presumably get the same pass.

[cindercatz]

So the problem with DAI is that it isn't enough of an action game? ME and JE get a pass because you don't classify them as RPGs. So if DA:I was more action-y, it'd presumably get the same pass.

I agree with Fast Jimmy here.

If it were more of an action game, to the point it really worked, it'd basically be Dragon's Dogma's system. That's where it would start. But I don't want that in DA, because you lose all the party tactics elements I absolutely love about DA:O and KoTOR. They basically undermined that in DA2 and scrapped it in DA:I, but that progression has sapped my enjoyment out of the combat. The wall skills and all are nice, but the actiony detached combat chains, the ultra flashy mush visuals, and all of that just kill the meat of the gameplay for me. I can't even see what's going on playing a daggers rogue. Mage was ok because it's more detached from the twitchy stuff. But detachment from combat shouldn't be necessary to enjoy the basic combat. And as I've said before, I hate the combat trigger. It's better than the button in DA2 sans auto-attack, but I've realized I just flat don't like the combat system because of the action game targeted changes. I hope they go to an update of the DA:O/KoTOR system from now on (in DA). 

 

I'm glad it's selling well and getting some praise. In some areas, it's the best game they've made (romances, the environments, some great characters, very good in other areas), and those are why I'm still playing DA:I, off and on. I'm in it for the storytelling. But there are other areas where it's the worst (basic side content, convo presentation, combat mechanics and controls, player defined tactics), and those are the areas I don't see any excuse not to drastically overhaul next time. So with better sales, they should be able to improve all that next time as well as continue to build on their strengths. So it's good news, but it's not an excuse to keep moving the wrong direction in some ways.

[Ajna]

Why am I here?

[cindercatz]

Why am I here?

I dunno, but I'm glad you are? lol Never mind me.

[Fast Jimmy]

So the problem with DAI is that it isn't enough of an action game? ME and JE get a pass because you don't classify them as RPGs. So if DA:I was more action-y, it'd presumably get the same pass.

Essentially, yes for ME and JE. But that doesn't mean DA:I gets a pass.

You can't make a good action-based party RPG. It can't be done. It is like trying to make a sturdy concrete block that also rolls well - they are diametrically opposed goals.

A party-based RPG is driven by stats/builds/loadouts and consists of party management and tactical unit placement during combat. And an action game is driven by fluidity of controls, visually engaging gameplay and timing mechanisms.

People who were playing games like DA:O as one character and not paying any attention to the their party were, in essence, suboptimally playing the game. I'm not saying they were playing it WRONG, but its not how the genre is supposed to work. Bioware, in response, began DESIGNING the gameplay suboptimally in future titles to accommodate this. And quickly realized that you can't do it without scaling back the RPG elements (attribute options, ability to equip any piece of equipment if a character is built right, having the ability to have suboptimal character builds for the sake of experimentation, outside-the-box party synergies or even just wacky RP color).

Objectively, as an action game, it does not play well. Compared to action game titles, the controls are sluggish, slow, unresponsive and the player is not engaged. Even compared to other ARPG combat systems, like Skyrim, Dragon's Dogma or even Kingdoms of Amalur (the game DA:I most reminds me of), the game doesn't measure up. Similarly, in terms of RPG mechanics, party tactics and ability to use the UI to work as a party, the game ALSO does not measure up well to competitors.



So yes... if the game was more "action-y," it would be a better game. And if the game was more of a party-based RPG system, it would be a better game. Since it is trying to be both, it fails at both, creating a middling experience that can be found better nearly anywhere else. It's not strategic party gameplay. And its not gripping action gameplay. And there's no way to balance the two - a better UI for the tac cam won't take away some of the action "pop-a-mole" aspects of the design, nor will it restore things like equipment verisimilitude or attribute control, let alone some of the things DA:O did like non-combat skills.

Just like its barren open world design and its sparing use of cinematics outside the MQ in a cinematic-driven game... it tries to be all things, to DO all things. And it just comes off as bland. At least to me. And I'm sure others. But as always, YMMV.

[Fast Jimmy]

Not in my experience.

I'm terrible at action games, aiming guns, etc. ME1 made me love to be a sniper, I was so freaking good at it there from the get go, not because I was suddenly proficient at aiming or mastered the controls, but because the game was helping someone as crappy as me to aim .

This is why I also don't understand the whole "it's an action game" thing, if it was I wouldn't be able to play it.

They made it an action game for casual players. As far as FPS go, ME as a series is laughably easy. As far as an ARPGs go, DA:I is ridiculously simple compared to a game like Dark Souls.

This was acceptable when the action elements were light and the difficulty came from cranking it up to Nightmare and enjoying the party-based tactics portion of the game. Without making that portion of the game as deep or easy-to-engage with, the game falls short.

[ThreeF]

This was acceptable when the action elements were light and the difficulty came from cranking it up to Nightmare and enjoying the party-based tactics portion of the game. Without making that portion of the game as deep or easy-to-engage with, the game falls short.

I suppose it's true, if you care about the combat. I've yet to encounter an RPG where I find the combat engaging to the point where I care for it as much as for the story/characters. I wish there was an RPG with no random encounters.

 

I like the tactical combat, but imo DAO version is not tactical, it just gives you control to program your companion AI better, never bothered with it aside from assigning potions.

 

Now if  tactical mode and AI actually worked in DAI, it would be much closer to my understanding of what tactical combat is. But since it works the way it works I've adapted myself to play tactics in a chaotic environment. It actually feels kind of realistic in a way.

[Fast Jimmy]

Self-selection bias cannot be resolved by increasing the sample size. The sample could be half the relevant population and self-selection bias would still skew things. Bottom line, the number voters in these player's choice polls is sufficient to create a statistically significant sample.

I'm confused how those two statements DON'T contradict each other.

If self-selection bias can't be corrected for, then the results of these polls are meaningless. If we acknowledge that self-selection bias ruins the polls, how does the sample size suddenly become acceptable?

[Il Divo]

That's fair. Still, at least ME and Jade Empire were fun as action games - I'm not against action games. But party-based RPGs that try to ALSO incorporate action elements just rub me the VERY wrong way. Nothing about DA:I's system leaves me with any type of positive feeling. I love corny ScyFy channel movies. I love Isaac Asimov. I would be appalled to see a corny ScyFy channel movie rendition of a classic Asimov story.

 

 

Jade Empire was fun as an action game? 

[Fast Jimmy]

I suppose it's true, if you care about the combat. I've yet to encounter an RPG where I find the combat engaging to the point where I care for it as much as for the story/characters. I wish there was an RPG with no random encounters.

I like the tactical combat, but imo DAO version is not tactical, it just gives you control to program your companion AI better, never bothered with it aside from assigning potions.

Now if tactical mode and AI actually worked in DAI, it would be much closer to my understanding of what tactical combat is. But since it works the way it works I've adapted myself to play tactics in a chaotic environment. It actually feels kind of realistic in a way.

You aren't playing tactics. You are building your party and setting up their AI STRATEGICALLY. Tactics involve unit placement and utilizing your units strengths to control the battelfield. That's close to a dictionary definition.

If you created a perfect character build and set up tons of AI tactics, you STILL aren't playing tactically because you aren't moving you party units in a way that controls enemies and utilitizes the environment. What one thing DA:I does absolutely atrociously is crippling the player's ability to give movement orders to units easily in a way they actually listen.

And your first statement says everything - you don't care about combat. And as I said in my earlier post - people are playing these games suboptimally, so it's not a surprise that they don't enjoy them. It's like playing chess and only controlling one piece - of course it's going to seem hard and boring. It's because the genre (which started with turn-based games and then moved into RTwP to allow for more fluid visuals) can't be properly balanced for someone who takes each "turn" to make sure enemies are funneled into where the player wants, while moving their units to do the most damage and taking the least (or even no) damage, while also balancing for someone who just wants to take their main character up and start wacking enemies relentlessly and dodging attacks as they come in.

Party-based tactics are hampered with characters and enemies who can run up to each other so quickly without penalties (like attacks of opportunity) that it makes unit placement worthless. And it's completely broken when the player has to fight the UI and the controls to move their party around the battlefield. Those who say DA:O's combat was slow and sluggish don't realize it was done so INTENTIONALLY to avoid crippling unit placement tactics and preventing the player to dodge attacks by simply kiting around the attack animation.


You don't want combat in your games. That's totally fine. But it's the vast majority of the game, so I hope you can understand that when a developer messes up that part (90% of the experience), it can hugely devalue the game for those who do enjoy it.

Bioware is the last AAA developer with party-based RPG combat. Full stop. So when they screw the pooch on doing that, there are few if no other options for gamers. There are lots of games with good stories and no combat (Telltale is a great developer for this) and there are other developers wih great character development, friendships and romances (the Persona series is highly heralded in this regard). There are lots of other options for action games and lots of other options for ARPG combat. Yet there are NO AAA alternatives for party based RPG combat. It's a wasteland. At least recently, indie developers have been popping out of the woodwork to make party based games, but these are still low-budget endeavors. A full AAA developer who does this was limited to Bioware. And it is, in my opinion, now an extinct designation (unless one of the indie developers strikes gold and is willing to dump $20M into a sequel in a few years).

[Il Divo]

To be fair, sandwiched between KOTOR, NWN and DA:O, one couldn't be blamed for seeing that as the aberration and not the herald of things to come.

 

Why would that be seen as an aberration? As early as KotOR, you can see the effects of the removal of Vancian Casting making the gameplay more action oriented. Jade Empire didn't exist in a vacuum,  you also had Mass Effect 1 in there which cemented Bioware's desire for a cinematic experience and they also indicated they intended to make a trilogy out of it. Follow that up with DA:O and ME2 being released almost simultaneously.

 

At best, I'd say there was a "conflict" between those two styles of play, but by the time DA:O came out, that style of play felt more like the aberration by comparison, imo. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Jade Empire was fun as an action game?

For an XBox game? Yeah, it wasn't bad. I mean... have you ever played Batman: Dark Tomorrow or Dragonball Z: Sagas?

[WillieStyle]

I'm confused how those two statements DON'T contradict each other.

If self-selection bias can't be corrected for, then the results of these polls are meaningless. If we acknowledge that self-selection bias ruins the polls, how does the sample size suddenly become acceptable?

 

 

Sigh! A poll must have several factors to be useful.  A statistically significant sample size is one.  Safeguards against self-selection bias are another.  One has nothing to do with the other.  You claimed that the sample sizes of those polls were not statistically significant.  I was correcting you.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why would that be seen as an aberration? As early as KotOR, you can see the effects of the removal of Vancian Casting making the gameplay more action oriented. Jade Empire didn't exist in a vacuum, you also had Mass Effect 1 in there which cemented Bioware's desire for a cinematic experience and they also indicated they intended to make a trilogy out of it. Follow that up with DA:O and ME2 being released almost simultaneously.

At best, I'd say there was a "conflict" between those two styles of play, but by the time DA:O came out, that style of play felt more like the aberration by comparison, imo.

In retrospect, yes, you can see the pattern. On the other hand, the removal of vancian casting was totally acceptable because Star Wars lore doesn't work like that - they aren't casting spells or preparing instances of Force Push or Jedi Mind Trick ahead of time, they channel the force naturally (just like a Sorcerer in D&D does, actually). And just like Bioware showed they could make an action martial arts RPG and then still make a great tactical party-based RPG with DA:O, one could easily say that Bioware was capable of making a FPS RPG. Different teams, different directions, different audiences, it could all work.

Instead... it became the direction and that DA:O was the "mistake." Unfortunately.

I'm not saying the writing wasn't on the walls, but there was enough plausible things going on to still also seem like this wasn't all a big misunderstanding. "DA2 was a fluke, DA:O could use some improvements, hopefully DA:I is the solution." Instead, it is basically DA 2.5.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sigh! A poll must have several factors to be useful. A statistically significant sample size is one. Safeguards against self-selection bias are another. One has nothing to do with the other. You claimed that the sample sizes of those polls were not statistically significant. I was correcting you.

Fair enough.

[ThreeF]

If you created a perfect character build and set up tons of AI tactics, you STILL aren't playing tactically because you aren't moving you party units in a way that controls enemies and utilitizes the environment. What one thing DA:I does absolutely atrociously is crippling the player's ability to give movement orders to units easily in a way they actually listen.

 

<snip>

I never implied that the game is fine as it is, btw,  and this is why I said that if the tactical mode and AI worked properly  it would be much closer to my understanding of what tactical combat is. I still manage to do this somewhat. I don't focus on perfect builds, I take advantage of the environment and since I can't control my companions without pausing and switching, I take advantage of enemy AI, control the enemies instead and adapt to my companions antics.

 

I don't find it to be hard, but I've never seen combat in games as something that I play the game for. Action game that relies on reflexes and proper button mashing? No thank you. Hack and slash? Lets go kill for pretty gear ™. Turn base tactics? Kind of fun, but once you learn the works it is too predictable and it stops being a puzzle.

 

(On a side note since you brought this up: I do not like Telltale, sorry (and it's no AAA is it?). Persona's romance/characters  is in no way on the same level of BW romance/characters, JRPG approach to characterization and character appeal is very different than in the west and Persona specifically lacks adults. So i don't see that many option for limited-combat RPG either. But I do like at least some of what I get from BW in this regard.)

[Il Divo]

In retrospect, yes, you can see the pattern. On the other hand, the removal of vancian casting was totally acceptable because Star Wars lore doesn't work like that - they aren't casting spells or preparing instances of Force Push or Jedi Mind Trick ahead of time, they channel the force naturally (just like a Sorcerer in D&D does, actually). And just like Bioware showed they could make an action martial arts RPG and then still make a great tactical party-based RPG with DA:O, one could easily say that Bioware was capable of making a FPS RPG. Different teams, different directions, different audiences, it could all work.

Instead... it became the direction and that DA:O was the "mistake." Unfortunately.

I'm not saying the writing wasn't on the walls, but there was enough plausible things going on to still also seem like this wasn't all a big misunderstanding. "DA2 was a fluke, DA:O could use some improvements, hopefully DA:I is the solution." Instead, it is basically DA 2.5.

 

Still, I think that approach is misguided. 

 

We saw a new emphasis on faster, action-based gameplay with KotOR, granted still with the DnD 3.5 rule set. Follow that up with Jade Empire two years later, a relatively straight forward action RPG. Time-skip 3 more years and you have Mass Effect 1, at which point Bioware announces it will be followed up with two more similar-esque games. Then wait another 3 years and you have DA:O and ME2. 

 

The way you're phrasing it gives the impression that Bioware simultaneously developed in two different directions, when from a "products released" stand point, we saw a series of increasingly action focused games, with a single outlier released 6 years after KotOR. Actually, we can go back even farther to Neverwinter Nights and see they reduced the party down to two characters from BG's 6.

 

I can understand the desire to see party-based combat from a AAA developer and disappointment at Bioware's change in direction. I'm just not sure I'm following the angle on why Jade Empire was a fluke in terms of RPG design, given events before and after.