10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I'm sorry that some people prefer a little more gameplay to their games offends you so deeply. We'll get out of the way so you can properly direct studios to make virtual Choose Your Own Adventure books.

YEP. I'm definitely stuck in Groundhog Day.

You certainly have every right to your gameplay, just as I and countless others have a right to story driven games since all forms of entertainment evolve over the years. There's a reason why there are different genres of movies for different target audiences. It should be the same for video games.

You've made it very transparent throughout your posts that your "rights" are the only one that should matter, as if participating in said gameplay somehow detracts from "participating" in your style of gaming.

Oh noez, I has to shoot ppls? Dis game sux!

[SkullandBonesmember]

Massadonious1 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I'm sorry that some people prefer a little more gameplay to their games offends you so deeply. We'll get out of the way so you can properly direct studios to make virtual Choose Your Own Adventure books.

YEP. I'm definitely stuck in Groundhog Day.

You certainly have every right to your gameplay, just as I and countless others have a right to story driven games since all forms of entertainment evolve over the years. There's a reason why there are different genres of movies for different target audiences. It should be the same for video games.

You've made it very transparent throughout your posts that your "rights" are the only one that should matter, as if participating in said gameplay somehow detracts from "participating" in your style of gaming.

Oh noez, I has to shoot ppls? Dis game sux!

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Yes. 

Seriously, as I've said(or maybe haven't said since it "hasn't happened"), shooter fans get dozens of games released for their tastes every year. Story driven fans get maybe 3. Even SuperMedbh said I had a point. So any game that gives us 10% of a deep narrative, multiple endings, and dialogue choices, no matter how little is implemented, we have no choice but to hand over our money. We need to grab any and all few such titles. It's not like we have variety.

Well, I guess it'd better than having a horses head in your bed...

It depends what your definition of a story based game is. Off the top of my head last year there was Tales of Monkey Island (technically 5, but I'll count it as one), Dragon Age, Braid. I'll give you that it's not a great list, although last year was a bad year for gaming all round. This year is looking better though with games like Alpha Protocol, Awakening, Sam and Max S3, Heavy Rain. Almost every game has a story, are you talking more about RPGs or even more story driven, say Heavy Rain?

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Loyalty is a funny notion. You bought Baldur's Gate or KOTOR with your lunch money. Congratulations. I'm not sure what else they owe you.

They at least owe it to themselves and the fans of the original game to stay true to the original game with the sequel.

[KitsuneRommel]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I'm playing other games (like Mass Effect 1) at the moment.

Woohoo. Been playing ME1 for 2 years. As great as it is, it would be nice to have something fresh, and ME2 doesn't really do that.

Well I don't quite share opinion on how ME1 was not a shooter though. The first 20 levels or so it might be true but now at level 54 or so I'm on my 3rd main planet with everyone wearing Colossus or Predator X armor full of IX or X mods and using Spectre X weapons I just run in, use singluarity and hip shoot with sniper rifle.

Fantasy RPGs usually manage to avoid that sort of God Modding.

[Massadonious1]

And what do they get with that? Respect? Respect doesn't pay their mortages or put their kids through college.



I obviously don't mean that they should completely bastardize everything for the sake of a cash flow, but I get sick of the notion that anything or everything a company does to help make a product sell better is a bad thing.



I heard it plenty when I played World of Warcraft. Blizzard had "integrity" before they "sold out" with WoW, and they should go back to making "quality" games like the original Warcraft, as if somehow being poor, struggling and living in their parents basement made them better developers.

[SkullandBonesmember]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Well I don't quite share opinion on how ME1 was not a shooter though.

instantdeath999 wrote...

Just for the record, I totally think ME3 should bring back some RPG elements from ME1.  I love RPG's.  I still think ME2 was a fantastic game though.  Fantastic RPG?  In a way, though I consider it more of an action-rpg, where ME I'd lean slightly towards roleplaying action game... lol, if that makes any sense at all.

Massadonious1 wrote...

I obviously don't mean that they should completely bastardize everything for the sake of a cash flow, but I get sick of the notion that anything or everything a company does to help make a product sell better is a bad thing.

But as I've said, THERE'S A MARKET FOR ALL GENRES. ALL GENRES CAN TURN A PROFIT.

Also, I have no idea where you get that I hate shooting. I'm fine with it until it overshadows a game that's supposed to be deep. In another thread a few hours ago I said Star Fox 64 was and STILL IS epic. Star Fox has aged wonderfully. FOR WHAT IT IS. Star Fox was not marketed as one thing, and the product itself another. I called ME2 being what it was through marketing on the original boards. I made it quite clear if my fears were unfounded, I would certainly apologize to Bioware. My fears WEREN'T unfounded though. ME1 was a near perfect hybrid of story telling and combat. Fallout 3 was pretty much the exact opposite of ME2. Great combat, real time and VATs, horrid story. ME2 had a very mediocre, if not crap story, AND horrible combat.

[KitsuneRommel]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

But as I've said, THERE'S A MARKET FOR ALL GENRES. ALL GENRES CAN TURN A PROFIT.

No one seems to make games with tactical turn based and/or isometric combat anymore.

[Onyx Jaguar]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

But as I've said, THERE'S A MARKET FOR ALL GENRES. ALL GENRES CAN TURN A PROFIT.

No one seems to make games with tactical turn based and/or isometric combat anymore.

This is sadly true, at least not on the same level budget wise as they use to.

[bjdbwea]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I called ME2 being what it was through marketing on the original boards. I made it quite clear if my fears were unfounded, I would certainly apologize to Bioware. My fears WEREN'T unfounded though. ME1 was a near perfect hybrid of story telling and combat. Fallout 3 was pretty much the exact opposite of ME2. Great combat, real time and VATs, horrid story. ME2 had a very mediocre, if not crap story, AND horrible combat.

I also suspected ME 2 would probably be disappointing already after reading about the changes. Unfortunately, I was right. It was even more disappointing than I had feared, in comparison to ME 1 of course. That's an important distinction. As a stand-alone game, it would be an okay shooter with a story much better than usual in that genre. Not a bad game per se, just not the kind of game that would normally interest me.

I disagree about the Fallout 3 story though. It was definitely too short, but at least the beginning was great, and the rest certainly wasn't terrible either. Not very creative, but apart from the ending it worked well enough. That's more than can be said about the ME 2 main story.

You are right about another thing though: The combat in Fallout 3 is an almost perfect combination of RPG and real-time combat, with VATS on top as a nod to the RPG fans. As always, combat works much better with mods of course.

And that's another point: Many criticisms against ME 2 could be easily forgiven if the game would allow for mods, that is for the community to fix the (many) things that need fixing. You don't need to get out of your way to make the customers happy and release a tool set like Bethesda or BioWare themselves did for DA, but it's almost as if ME 2 was programmed to make modding nigh impossible. Not unlikely, given they want to sell their DLCs, but Bethesda wanted to do that too. And they did, only their DLCs were of high quality and length, for an appropriate price.

(Yes, I know that some modding is possible, but many things are inaccessible.)

[SkullandBonesmember]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

No one seems to make games with tactical turn based and/or isometric combat anymore.

Where are you getting at? Are you saying that I'M saying games need to be turn based? If so, why the hell does my not liking ME2's combat mean I want a turn based game when I've specifically said I love Prince Of Persia, both VATs and real time Fallout 3, and ME1's combat? If you're saying there's no market for turn based fans you're wrong. Very wrong. There are still games released under turn based mechanics and turn profits.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

And what do they get with that? Respect? Respect doesn't pay their mortages or put their kids through college.

I obviously don't mean that they should completely bastardize everything for the sake of a cash flow, but I get sick of the notion that anything or everything a company does to help make a product sell better is a bad thing.

Well... maybe if today's current masses of so-called "gamers" actually appreciated games with depth and didn't want things to be as simple as possible, then perhaps the successful games would actually be the truly great games instead of the mindless and samey dreck we keep getting today. Y'know... like they used to be back when games were more of a niche hobby, before the days of the XBox and the PS2.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

No one seems to make games with tactical turn based and/or isometric combat anymore.

Where are you getting at? Are you saying that I'M saying games need to be turn based? If so, why the hell does my not liking ME2's combat mean I want a turn based game when I've specifically said I love Prince Of Persia, both VATs and real time Fallout 3, and ME1's combat? If you're saying there's no market for turn based fans you're wrong. Very wrong. There are still games released under turn based mechanics and turn profits.

No no no no no

How many games out there are like X-Com and Jagged Alliance that still hold the same appeal that they did a decade ago?  If you put the same amount of resources into one of those properities that you would lets say Mass Effect you would havea  financial failure on your hands because that genre has drifted from the public conciousness.

[KitsuneRommel]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

No one seems to make games with tactical turn based and/or isometric combat anymore.

Where are you getting at? Are you saying that I'M saying games need to be turn based? If so, why the hell does my not liking ME2's combat mean I want a turn based game when I've specifically said I love Prince Of Persia, both VATs and real time Fallout 3, and ME1's combat? If you're saying there's no market for turn based fans you're wrong. Very wrong. There are still games released under turn based mechanics and turn profits.

You misunderstood. Did they stop making isometric games because no one would buy them or was it simply because it was used for technological reasons when 3D was not feasible. It's the same with how every game started being real-time instead of turn-based. If they re-relased Ultima V with improved graphics but kept the game otherwise as it was would it sell? I would buy it but I doubt it would sell much.

Change is inevitable whether you or me like it.

Edit: Nostalgia is a funny thing though. http://en.wikipedia....ight_lore_3.gif was one of the first isometric games and it was considered revolutionary at the time.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 28 mai 2010 - 09:52 .

[Massadonious1]

I'm pretty sure the people that depend on making games for a living nowadays don't wish it could go back to being a "niche" hobby.



But yes, you're right, it's the "gamers" fault for driving the market. Buying games which they get wholesome fun out of, that lack such depth like killing goombas and flinging boomerangs at 8-bit squids that shoot rocks out of their snouts. How can they live with themselves? Obviously they should be banned from buying unecessary for a functioning society luxury products like video games ever again. Then the REAL games can get made. Games that require such Rhodes Scholar type thinking and logic like using ice weapons against a fire boss, and such masterpieces of storytelling where you get a beautiful scripted and pre-rendered cutscenes after every enemy you kill, and where you can find out a character's life story before you even travel anywhere significant with them.



Down with what others find fun! Up with what I find fun!



Where do I sign up?

[SkullandBonesmember]

Change is perfectly fine KR. CHANGE. Not MASSIVE OVERHAULS.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...



My friends Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy, and Shadow of Destiny would like a word with you.

Have both you and Onyx met them already?

[SkullandBonesmember]

Oh, and Massadonious? You may want to meet them as well.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

And what do they get with that? Respect? Respect doesn't pay their mortages or put their kids through college.

I obviously don't mean that they should completely bastardize everything for the sake of a cash flow, but I get sick of the notion that anything or everything a company does to help make a product sell better is a bad thing.

Well... maybe if today's current masses of so-called "gamers" actually appreciated games with depth and didn't want things to be as simple as possible, then perhaps the successful games would actually be the truly great games instead of the mindless and samey dreck we keep getting today. Y'know... like they used to be back when games were more of a niche hobby, before the days of the XBox and the PS2.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with accessability, and simplicity is often a benefit, when implemented correctly - abstract design and control issues don't just alienate casual players y'know. a lot of people to appreciated depth, whatever their relationship (casual or otherwise) with games, your elitist attitude does you no favours.
using movies as an example (and games have been using the movie industry as inspiration for ages, so it's apt), one of the reasons pixar films are so popular is that they layer their films with enough depth of humour than anyone can appreciate them - from children (the primary audience) up to the parents. as a result they have been incredibly successful with every film, and they also buck the trend by not sequelising the hell out of their IP. of course, not every movie studio operates the same way, you get the ones that just churn out filler all the time, too. it's the same with the game industry - most releases aim at the lowest common denominator (movie tie-ins usually) and are complete tosh, and the endless sequels to successful ideas (shrek, comic book movies) until they run the franchises dry. but that is the nature of the beast - they are driven by the markets to be like that, and if they don't, they generally fail. appealing to a wider audience, by simplifying certain aspects but keeping complexity where it counts does not necessarily make the game "less deep" or less enjoyable or diminish it in any way, and by appealing more to the mass market as well as the traditional fan, we get to keep enjoying future games from the studio when they are increasingly successful, as they have been in recent years.
from your attitude, you seem to be the type that would rather Bioware appeal only to the niche hardcore gamer with abstract design desicions and outdated gameplay mechanics and then fail, than a fan wanting BW to succeed. you can try and run from progress, but you will be caught eventually.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Loyalty is a funny notion. You bought Baldur's Gate or KOTOR with your lunch money. Congratulations. I'm not sure what else they owe you.

They at least owe it to themselves and the fans of the original game to stay true to the original game with the sequel.

they owe whom, what? who are you to tell anyone what they owe themselves or anyone else?

and mass effect 2 did stay true to the 1st game in almost every way - to say otherwise is laughable.

[Christmas Ape]

Terror_K wrote...

Well... maybe if today's current masses of so-called "gamers"

Congratulations! That's the earliest in a post I've seen someone completely invalidate their opinions.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

And what do they get with that? Respect? Respect doesn't pay their mortages or put their kids through college.

I obviously don't mean that they should completely bastardize everything for the sake of a cash flow, but I get sick of the notion that anything or everything a company does to help make a product sell better is a bad thing.

Well... maybe if today's current masses of so-called "gamers" actually appreciated games with depth and didn't want things to be as simple as possible, then perhaps the successful games would actually be the truly great games instead of the mindless and samey dreck we keep getting today. Y'know... like they used to be back when games were more of a niche hobby, before the days of the XBox and the PS2.

This is pretty confusing since gaming in general first started out with very little depth but being fun as hell (like eh, Mario perhaps?)

[SkullandBonesmember]

Jebel Krong wrote...

they owe whom, what? who are you to tell anyone what they owe themselves or anyone else?

and mass effect 2 did stay true to the 1st game in almost every way - to say otherwise is laughable.

The original fanbase are entitled to NOTHING. Paying them year in and year out isn't worth the waste of money it takes to print one page of Twilight.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

This is pretty confusing since gaming in general first started out with very little depth but being fun as hell (like eh, Mario perhaps?)

YES that is the point. Technology has evolved so far and there's so much that can be done with narratives in video gaming, but for the most part, developers haven't KEPT UP with technology save for uber cool graphics post headshots.

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Oh, and Massadonious? You may want to meet them as well.

Look, I've never disputed that games like that don't do well. It was never a point I was trying to make in the first place. I actually enjoyed Alan Wake, and I hope that particular company makes more games like that.

However, my fustration is aimed at people that seem to want every game to be like that, thinking that people have a few screws loose or are mentally incapable of handling such "depth" because they happen to enjoy (simple) titles with streamlined combat, and that any company is evil and gigantic sellouts for catering to that particular market of "gamers", or that they would incorporate any idea, no matter how small, from such a game in the first place.

It's ridiculously elitist.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Change is perfectly fine KR. CHANGE. Not MASSIVE OVERHAULS.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

My friends Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy, and Shadow of Destiny would like a word with you.

Have both you and Onyx met them already?

Yes I have played Indigo Prophecy, loved it until the third act then I now Despise the game.

Also I played a bit of Heavy Rain but when I found out who the Origami Killer was I facepalmed.

If you do not have good gameplay to back you up, and the storyline falters, the game goes from being decent to abysmal instead of "ok".

Shadow of Destiny is the game made by Konami I assume for the PS2?  Have not played it.

If you want a story driven game, play Deadly Premonition, or hell, even GTA 4. 

Plus I have played hundreds to perhaps over a thousand games, I can adjust to anything.  The Phoenix Wright games are a better example of what you are trying to shove out than that crap Quantic Dream is.  

Also I still do not see how this is relevant to the topic, neither Mass Effect game is like this.  I spent an equal amount of time in combat in both games.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 28 mai 2010 - 10:46 .