222 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

No game that has the Avatar ask "What's a Paladin?" should count as an Ultima game... at least Ultima 8 tried to be lore-faithful, as screwed as it was.

 

Agreed. The concept - a game where the Avatar was truly on his own, in an unknown world that began his path to godhood - was a pretty decent one. And I even really enjoyed the different magic systems for the different deities. As well as the "get caught stealing/fighting/what-have-you and have someone from the town arrive immediately to lightning-bolt-your butt" was cool. But its action-game mechanics and complete lack of player agency was... bad. Just bad.

 

But at least it tried to be an Ultima game. Ultima 9 was... I mean, it took everything the series stood for, lore-wise, and just crapped all over it ALL.

[Vroom Vroom]

I think it's kind of funny. Basically: "EA isn't making games for gamers, they're making it for people who don't play games but might buy them anyways"

Although I am uncertain, I think EA is going for Cellphone/Facebook/Mobile players specifically and are trying to pull them into console gaming.  

 

I think the whole microtransaction business started on Mobile gaming, which I think is something that EA has been keeping an eye on for quite some time and it (microtransactions) is one of the first things that EA started copying from the Mobile gaming model. 

 

From a business sense it'd make sense to want to attract people that love spending money just so they don't have to "wait 30 minutes to be able to play the next level", imagine having big spenders like that playing a console game laced with microtransactions?

 

Now if I were to think about someone that only plays Cellphone/Facebook games, I'd think that they'd be completely new to shooters (which is what EA publishes the most of, with the possible exception of sport titles) and might find them difficult. As far as I am aware, Mobile games are pretty willing to hand you things as long as you pay for them. I think that EA's plan here is to lower the difficulty by an absurd amount and pull in those players and then a few titles on down the road they might include a microtransaction to where you can pay to either skip levels you can't beat or that makes the game even easier (enemies just stand still for a certain amount of time). 

 

Those of us that like to game on consoles (by the way, I've been lumping PC in with consoles every time I say console. Maybe I shouldn't, but I have) are going to be the one who pays the price when this nonsense rolls around

 

What makes things even worse is that the fact that other big companies (Ubisoft and Activision) are watching whenever EA does something and always follow suit whenever EA proves to be successful and that they can get away with it (no instruction booklets, season passes, and multiplayer passes). 

 

 

 

TL;DR: we might see gaming change for the worse because the big companies aren't happy with the number of consumers (got too greedy), would rather appeal to people that don't game (or do so in the same way that we do) and are completely willing to ruin their existing consumer base's experience to do so.

[Isichar]

Although I am uncertain, I think EA is going for Cellphone/Facebook/Mobile players specifically and are trying to pull them into console gaming.  

 

I think the whole microtransaction business started on Mobile gaming, which I think is something that EA has been keeping an eye on for quite some time and it (microtransactions) is one of the first things that EA started copying from the Mobile gaming model. 

 

From a business sense it'd make sense to want to attract people that love spending money just so they don't have to "wait 30 minutes to be able to play the next level", imagine having big spenders like that playing a console game laced with microtransactions?

 

Now if I were to think about someone that only plays Cellphone/Facebook games, I'd think that they'd be completely new to shooters (which is what EA publishes the most of, with the possible exception of sport titles) and might find them difficult. As far as I am aware, Mobile games are pretty willing to hand you things as long as you pay for them. I think that EA's plan here is to lower the difficulty by an absurd amount and pull in those players and then a few titles on down the road they might include a microtransaction to where you can pay to either skip levels you can't beat or that makes the game even easier (enemies just stand still for a certain amount of time). 

 

Those of us that like to game on consoles (by the way, I've been lumping PC in with consoles every time I say console. Maybe I shouldn't, but I have) are going to be the one who pays the price when this nonsense rolls around

 

What makes things even worse is that the fact that other big companies (Ubisoft and Activision) are watching whenever EA does something and always follow suit whenever EA proves to be successful and that they can get away with it (no instruction booklets, season passes, and multiplayer passes). 

 

 

 

TL;DR: we might see gaming change for the worse because the big companies aren't happy with the number of consumers (got too greedy), would rather appeal to people that don't game (or do so in the same way that we do) and are completely willing to ruin their existing consumer base's experience to do so.

 

It becomes more and more apparent as the years go by that I'm not EA's target audience.

[The Hierophant]

Lol indeed. I'm fine with that. There's other developers out there that isn't treating their fanbase like idiots.

Ot but read Nanatsu no Taizai, and The Breaker. 

[Isichar]

Lol indeed. I'm fine with that. There's other developers out there that isn't treating their fanbase like idiots.

 

This is true. I'm a big fan of the idea that consumers hold just as much responsibility then anyone else. We can complain all we want but it's our wallets that do the talking in business. We need to be supporting companies that make the games we want to be playing, and not keep giving the benefit of the doubt to companies who show they are willing to milk titles we like or place a higher emphasis on selling a game compared to making a good product. Not that I feel the need to boycott or anything but I find reviewers I trust and listen to friends whos tastes I trust to judge if something is worth buying, since mainstream media seems to not be aligned with my tastes anymore.

 

There are people out there who make great games and unfortunately don't get much recognition to them and I just need to make sure they're the ones I'm giving my money to.

[Isichar]

How are you defining "milking?"

 

Relying on the title alone to sell something, particularly from IP's that have been successful in the past.

 

Basically like: "we know people will buy this game because it's an Assassins Creed (just an example) game"

[Isichar]

What does this mean? Unless someone from the company strictly says "yeah, we just made this because people will buy Final Fantasy/Mass Effect/Whatever," you can't actually know if that's the reality. It's conjecture at best.

 

Can you give an example of a "milked" game or franchise?

 

CoD would be the obvious example

[Isichar]

I can understand that (though from what I hear they do change things up occasionally--see BLOPS).

 

I guess I should take a step from my original statement and say that just because a series is reusing a name of a successful franchise that doesn't mean that the quality has necessarily dropped. Hell, I still play WoW and I know people who have referred to that as a milked series which I can't completely deny despite the fact that I can still personally enjoy it so opinions can play a huge part.

 

As you pointed out even CoD has some titles that can be decent and at least try something a bit more new then others.

 

What I was trying to get at is that when a game comes out we should judge it on that games individual merits. Let's say a new Mass Effect game comes out it should stand or fall on it's own quality and not that of the name. It might be good, it might not be, but deciding that we will support it because we want more Mass Effect can be an unhealthy (if not understandable) attitude.

[Lotion Soronarr]

No game that has the Avatar ask "What's a Paladin?" should count as an Ultima game... at least Ultima 8 tried to be lore-faithful, as screwed as it was.

 

 

 

[Raizo]

I agree on the issue of accessibility, this could potentially be a barrier to individuals who don't have a lot of experience with games.

I've been gaming since the late 80's and yet even to this day I find open world games to be intimidating. The worlds are too large, to many distractions, the instructions on what you can and can't do rant always clear.

Despite Ubisoft's desire to simplify the traversal system in AC:Unity parkour still remains a frustrating experience.

I failed numerous mini games in GTA:V because I didn't know what I was supposed to do. How do I control the arm on the tow truck so that could reposes someone's car? Why did 'x' side quest not end because 'x' car wasn't parked in perfectly in 'y' spot ( which involved be bashing buttons in frustrating, accidentally firing my gun within range of the police and then getting gun down and losing a chunk of my money to get out jail ). Getting lost in driving missions because I have to travel at a certain speed but I am unable to keep track of my objective marker when I'm to busy running from the law/trying to beat someone else/trying not to crash.

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a brilliant game but sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all the stuff off the beaten track. I barely made it out of the Hinterlands and by then the damage was done, the storyline lost all sense of urgency.

[Fidite Nemini]

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a brilliant game but sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all the stuff off the beaten track. I barely made it out of the Hinterlands and by then the damage was done, the storyline lost all sense of urgency.

 

DAI storyline has no sense of urgency. You'll see once you progress of the main story line, that the whole DAI story feels completely disconnected both to itself and especially to what you actually do when you explore regions.

 

The most urgent sense I ever had from DAI was to quit the game and play something that's not boring me the hell out. Never even finished my first playthrough and thoroughly regret having bought the game.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

You people really hate Elder Scrolls, right?

 

BTW, The Templar Order mission and the invasion of "douchebags" to your base mission are really well done so far.

[Fast Jimmy]

Its not that games are too hard.. Its that people aren't willing to learn..

It's not that people aren't willing to learn... it's that developers have given up trying to teach.

[Fast Jimmy]

What recent game taught well in your opinion, and how?

As paradoxical as it may sound (pun intended), CK2 was a game that taught very well, although not in the traditional sense. It's tutorial left me with more questions than answers, but it's UI did a great job of being more self-explanatory. But that's not a good example of a game that taught well by design. Rather one that taught well by repeated, sharp stabs at my ego.

In terms of a good teaching game, I'd say Banner Saga did an excellent job at doing this. The game has progressively more complex levels of strategy as the player gets further in, unlocked by different character and enemy types that bring various strengths and weaknesses to the table. The game not only has good pacing for this, but also walks the player through how these different challenges can be counter-acted (at a high level - the game doesn't hold your hand on higher difficulties). In addition, the tutorials are laid out in a very narrative-friendly manner and not a "it's time to go to adveturer's school!" manner.

By the end of the game, the player is verses in the necessity to use attacks to damage armor over straight normal damage, has a sense of urgency about enemies who are able to heal and get a crazy feeling of fear knowing that Bellower can tear through a poorly lined up defensive unit wall if you aren't careful.

It's a game that was simple to learn, difficult to master and which never made me feel like there were game mechanics going on that weren't explained. It's not a perfect game, but it is perfectly taught.

[Fast Jimmy]

What recent game taught well in your opinion, and how?

On another front, I also thought Divinity: Original Sin did a good job of teaching without tutorials, but rather through gameplay. The environments were so interactive that it encouraged constant and deep experimentation, which resulted in the player learning by doing. It wasn't just number or stat crunching to get the best DPS outcome... the player could feel like a mad scientist by freezing an enemy and then teleporting them off a small ledge, only to see them shatter and break all over the floor!

That's learning through fun.

[Steelcan]

As paradoxical as it may sound (pun intended), CK2 was a game that taught very well, although not in the traditional sense. It's tutorial left me with more questions than answers, but it's UI did a great job of being more self-explanatory. But that's not a good example of a game that taught well by design. Rather one that taught well by repeated, sharp stabs at my ego.
 

Huzzah for broken tutorials!

[Fast Jimmy]

Huzzah for broken tutorials!

Don't you see? THAT'S the Paradox! The most insanely complex and intricate strategy games of all them have broken, nonsensical tutorials. And people still spend countless hours figuring them out!

[Steelcan]

Don't you see? THAT'S the Paradox! The most insanely compels and intricate strategy games of all them have broken, nonsensical tutorials. And people still spend countless hours figuring them out!

then they somehow fumble their way through enough games to learn how to play, then the Mongols come and drink their tears