Kavva wrote...
Errr
in all the BG series there was no mana 
Yeah that's true. The principle is the same though. The number of spells you could use was finite, so just unloading all your spells could leave you in serious trouble if you stumbled in to another battle. That doesn't happen in Dragon Age because a few seconds after one battle has finished, you are all full again. With mana regeneration and potions, it also makes the battles themselves easier now too. In the past, you had to fight with what you had, and couldn't just click on a bunch of potions if it wasn't working out too well.
sten_super
wrote...
I'm afraid I'm going to be the first on this thread to disagree. You state that gamers like you 'have nowhere
else to go'; that is an indication that (sadly) there probably isn't a sufficiently big market for good quality games (i.e. high development cost) games that would fit into the niche that you want. It ultimately all comes down to individual preferences, and of course the games developer is going to appeal to as many people's individual preferences as they can. This means that games are probably going to become more aimed at the 'casual' gamer, because that broadens their appeal (and therefore the market they can sell to).
I should state, for the record, that while I played Baldurs Gate, and NWN, and KOTOR, I am what you would probably describe as a 'casual' gamer. I play RPGs not for the challenging combat (I play most of them on easy) but for the storyline. I personally prefer the current generations of games to old games like Baldurs Gate, which I found a bit of a slog that was made worthwhile by the great storyline. I've tried not to let that personal perspective affect my argument above too much though.
I don't think that's the case. If anything it's the other way around. The games for the mass audiences have higher development costs, because the mainstream gamer demands very advanced graphics, sound and music. GTA4 being a good example, as I think it's the most expensive game ever made, costing $100m. A good challenging game needn't be like that, and in fact, I often get my tactics fix by playing old games which aren't pretty, but are great to play.
As for the story thing, I'm not being cheeky but if story is all you really care about, then books and movies are surely the best option? If it has to be interactive as a game though, even then, surely adventure games would be better. RPG stories are all such cliches, even Dragon Age. So if you don't really like combat and want to follow a good story, then I think it would be far better to play though adventure games like those Gabriel Knight games, or The Longest Journey, or Syberia. I don't know if there are many modern equivalents of those these days though. (I did hear there is a new Syberia in development).
But my point is that games like Dragon Age are largely combat, so they should at least make
that as good as it can be.
Bartlebyfinch wrote...
....snip.....
"aggro."
"tank"
as
far as I can tell, a development in RPGs that came from MMO's
"taunt"
Everquest
I have never played another game (MMO or otherwise) where the high-end raiding was as challenging as it was in EQ
You know exactly where I am coming from
I think MMORPG's did bring a few unwelcome things, but in general they moved things forward. As an old EQ player, I find it frustrating that nothing since has provided that same kind of challenge. The thing that bugs me the most, is that not only is EverQuest eleven years old now... but it was also having to work within the confines of a real time, online RPG. So it couldn't have too much in the way of real time actions in combat or it just couldn't have worked with the technology.
A single player RPG doesn't have those same restrictions, so when I see a game like Gothic 3 come along
with it's big dumb fireball spamming, it's really annoying. They have the ultimate freedom, and most of the time they put very little effort in to magic systems. Oblivion was slightly better but still not very good, and it's the same with most.
Dragon Age is about the best, and I like how some of the skills are linked, so if you do a Low Blow first, then certain other skills will be even more powerful. But still, to me this is just an action-RPG now. There is too much combat for me to bother playing it on Hard mode, or it would be too tedius and take forever. And on medium mode it's just 99% hack 'n slash, with about 1% tough boss battles.
I think these single player RPG's are in a precarious position, because MMORPG's are such strong competition. The biggest being WoW, and when you look at what that offers, it's pretty amazing... Dragon Age is a bit more of a personalised experience, although really, it's just a collection of quests strung together with some story. WoW may be lacking an overall story linking the quests together, but the actual questing itself is pretty similar, and there are thousands of them. Add in the fact that there is a much bigger world, far more gear, far more classes, and the ability to play with (or against) other real people... and it makes single player RPG's look a bit second rate. I think to single player RPG's in general, really need to up their game to keep up.
Bryy_Miller wrote...
This is a non-issue. If EA and BioWare want to expand their market, that's up to them. They won't stop
simply because you want them to make less money.
I am not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that they are switching their audience and alienating their earlier fans in the process. They can't have it both ways. If they are in to making action RPG's for the mainstream, then they are going up against some stiff competition, and that might not do them any good. Look at Titan Quest. Their games might not be sexy and flashy enough for mainstream gamers, so it might not sell as well as they hoped, and in the process they will have
lost their old fans who bought their games for different reasons.
In other words, they may make more money by satisfying and succeeding in a niche market, rather than not doing so well in the mass market. This is the exact principle on which indipendent games companies survive and thrive.
Bryy_Miller
wrote...
You should remember, that we
don't really have anywhere else to go.
Outside. You can go
outside. Video games are a luxury, not a need.
Did you really
think that is what I meant? Or are you just trolling?
p.s. To the troll replies, don't expect a reply from me unless you can come up with a sensible response.
Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 24 mars 2010 - 08:17 .
Ce sujet est fermé
) with special products/services. Do not try to simplify markets by making it seem like the "LOL LETS MARKET THE GAME TO EVERYONE" strategy is the only one in their playbook. In addition, loyal customers are the best form of marketing one could ask for and these are the customers that will continue to drive the product/service forward in the future even when you slip up. The "majority" is a lot less forgiving and is exremely fickle, so relaying them for a long period of time isn't very wise. I haven't even touched the problem of "selling your artistic soul" and trying to make a mass marketed game. There are a lot of terrible trash games that have tried to appeal to the masses, but guess what you need to have some artistic integrity if it is going to succeed at all. So the OP has a point, although mixed in with too much elitism and nostalgia for my taste, Bioware should always be wary of balancing the "hardcores" and the "casual" influences.
Retour en haut
