Smokej said:
I have to correct this from an educational standpoint; the individualized instruction with the integration of the provided material is the best way to teach something. If you can generate instrinsic interest on the subject a student is willing to learn every aspect of the subject by himself. (i hope i can make myself clear here as english is only my second language but i'm expierenced in educational matters theoretically and in practice)
This approach is great for someone who is interested in chemistry and wishes to learn chemistry. However, the reason this does not work for a specific game is because you have not generate sufficient involvement in your product to warrant that learning process. As well 'Here's a book, get to it' doesn't involve individualized instruction with the integration of the provided material. It provides the material and says 'Look at the fun you'll have a few hours from now if you can sort this out.' Bad. Wrong.
I'm not saying having a deep gameplay, or even a technical manual is a bad thing. Far from it, I've had a lot of fun poring through technical mechanics instruction for games I truly love.... but that's the rub isn't it? I was already hooked. I already understood and played the game. The technical aspects were just a matter to refine that mastery of those mechanics.
Those technical manuals are great for higher concepts. They're HORRIBLE for teaching someone how to play.
Of course a game is an entertainment product so other rules take effect. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who prefer the intrinsic way of approaching a game. A lot of the indie games i like are solely approachable with this way (for example Unreal World, Dominions, Dwarf Fortress) and all of them have their fanbase,
Yes, they have a fanbase. However, they are all unapproachable on a larger scale because they set forth Learning Cliffs, and barriers to entry that are unnecessary. These games could have the same mechanics, the same depth, but could educate the user on how to play them better, and you'd end up with stronger products because of it. Instead, you have a fan base that prides themselves on the fact these games are arcane and unapproachable except by the devout, as if that actually makes them complex and deep, when all it does is cuts yourself off from fans who appreciate depth but are not willing to invest major amounts of time, effort, and money before they can possibly decide if they actually like the game mechanics.
Or... to put it briefly: If you have to spend hours before you can figure out if a game is fun or not, chances are, it probably isn't. Game designers have no need to shoot themselves in the foot like that, there is no excuse. 'Indy' is not an excuse.
All your arguments have a valid point but I see the whole progress of changes from a wider scale. The changes made from DA:O to DA2 are small but steady steps in changing genres into something that I don't like. In other genres i can appreciate the changes; for example Sport Games, Driving. Those are better than ever before. But my favourite Genres Strategy,RPG and Simulation are nothing than a former shadow of themselves.
The irony is that those three genres have fans that are amongst the most traditionalist of video game fans. Constantly crying out for innovation, then complaining when things change. They claim 'We'd like a game more like Balder's Gate!' then when it happens, complaining that the game 'Is just Balder's Gate in a different world, I'll just go play Balder's Gate.'
It comes down to a distillation of what the rpg genre is. Is it just stat-management with fantasy fluff? If so, there's not a lot of innovation left in that genre, and not for want of trying. Modern techology just simply won't allow for it. They require a lot larger world set than other games, and when you have to create a large world, you have to spend more money populating that world with assets that also cost greater amounts of money.
Is there room for intricate deep gameplay in RPGs? Absolutely. Is a product going to do so without a simple entry into it, allowing for gradual learning of the mechanics over time rather than a full on "Here it is, suck on it"? Hell no. It's just not worth spending the money to then shoot yourself in the ass because players will
rightly say your game is unnecessarily hard to get in to.
And that is how several others feel, they understand how the industry is changing so they satisfy the big target audiences but they aren't provided with alternatives and feel left out (not counting the indie scene, im talking about big quality titles). This is a major drawback of the industry. In other forms of entertainment i can always choose from a wide array of high quality alternatives (music, movies literature.)Nobody would be angered about the changes made in games if they wouldnt feel left out.
The thing is, I'm all for complicated and deep mechanics too. I just don't want to have to spend hours of research and such just to learn why a game is fun. It's the game's job to show me why it is fun. The idea of accessibility as being a countermovement to complexity is bullcrap. It's utter, complete nonsense. It's like the idea that in order to have a good movie it must cater to a small audience and use imagery and dialog that confounds those who 'are not familiar with the director's work.' Bullocks. That's simply pretentious nonsense wrapped up in an elitist attitude.
The quintessence of my statement is that how you can have the most fun out of an entertainment product is as variable as the way you approach to learn about it.
I can agree with you there, but my counter arguement is that people are reacting to a statement about making a genre more accessible to people as tho it means their favorite genre is going to turn into stupidtowneasymode, which is nonsense and fear-mongering. You have people who claim that a game WITH THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM as its prequel is 'dumbed down' for 'the masses' as tho saying it makes it true.
Enough. It's this sort of nonsense and a complete disconnect from 'how to make entertainment entertaining to more people' and a complete inability to actually read what is said by the interviewee in the first place that has lead to a series of comments in what is essentially an assanine attempt to jump to conclusions and take things out of context.
?Then you level up and you start spending points, and the RPG mechanics are introduced in a way that?s gradual, in a way that welcomes someone who would otherwise maybe go, ?Whoa! Too complex!? and shut it off immediately, and lets them slide into it without even recognizing it ‑‑ which frankly, ideally increases the overall RPG customer base, which means we can make more RPGs, which means I can play more RPGs that I don?t know the ending to. I like that."
The OP clearly latched onto the words 'more welcoming' and 'dumbed down' and didn't bother to read. The designer is OBVIOUSLY talking about the gradual learning curve, while explaining that RPG mechanics have been incorporated into other games for a while now, so it's not like it's the mechanics themselves that are hindering the genre from growing. Instead, he clearly states it's how they are presented. He's OBVIOUSLY talking about introducing concepts gradually, rather than immediately. It's done harm to the genre, and that's why you don't have good games in the genre. It's not because designers don't care about you, it's because this need to have all the complexity NOW NOW NOW alienates the other customers that would also enjoy their game if only you didn't demand they throw it down everyone's throat as soon as possible. Get over yourself. Companies cannot afford to make games for you if you won't make a simple concession as 'Build complexity gradually rather than all at once.'
That's all he is saying, people, and if you didn't get that from the original author, I suggest calling your lawyer, and giving him the name of your elementary school, because you will need to sue them for FAILING TO TEACH YOU HOW TO READ.
