How do you feel when you hear this statement in regards to an upcoming game?
Heh. Captcha: heated debate
Heh. Captcha: heated debate
"We're Making It Accessible to a Wider Audience."
- Thread starter Mr. Eff_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In most cases it means "we're dumbing it down because there are a lot more dumb people in the world and we want more money"
Just look at new Hitman.
Just look at new Hitman.
I think it means that the original game's concept appealed to a too small an audience. Which probably meant it was what the devs wanted and not what the publishers wanted financially.
The new "accessible" game means making changes that will appeal to more people, thus ensuring financial success whilst possibly sacraficing some of the dev's vision.
The new "accessible" game means making changes that will appeal to more people, thus ensuring financial success whilst possibly sacraficing some of the dev's vision.
When I break down this statement, for me it essentially comes to "Our game was too niche, so we're taking out many of the elements that make it unique in order to bring it to the lowest common denominator." In doing so, they are potentially attracting a new audience, but at the expense of some of their initial audience. For example, a friend of mine was very excited upon learning of a Dark Souls sequel. Then he read the aforementioned quote, and now he's not sure if he's going to buy it.
A pessimistic view, yes, but I think this is what is contributing to stagnation in the medium.
A pessimistic view, yes, but I think this is what is contributing to stagnation in the medium.
Wider audience = less depth.
Case in point, League of Legends vs. DotA
LoL is simpler so that more people can get into it, but its lack of depth makes it very unbalanced (combined with how Riot balances their game, it's no surprise).
DotA on the other hand has great depth for competitive play, but that amount of depth takes time to learn and does not attract as many players.
Case in point, League of Legends vs. DotA
LoL is simpler so that more people can get into it, but its lack of depth makes it very unbalanced (combined with how Riot balances their game, it's no surprise).
DotA on the other hand has great depth for competitive play, but that amount of depth takes time to learn and does not attract as many players.
Depends on how it is done and how well it is done. Example: Old school rpgs: You have a lot of different stats that when it boils down to it, they only affect a few things. So someone who is used to these kind of things will have no trouble but someone not used to it will be confused. Often that kind of build leads to one or two optizmed builds. Bringing all those different stats that do the same thing into a few stats makes things easier for every one to manage.
Making something accesiable allows for people to pick up and play for a couple of hours and then put the game down. On the other side when you have a game with so many different features that it takes fifteen hours just to get out of the tutorial or just to understand the basic mechanics of the game the you might just have a probleam.
Some of the best games are the ones that have a simple and easy to understand gameplay. Minecraft for example the basis of its gameplay is hitting blocks in order to gather them to survie. That is the basic concept of it. These rescources allow you to build a shelter, make weapons and make tools that allows you to gather more rescorces faster.
I think that we as a group of people who consider ourselves 'hardcore' ( a stupid term that infers we are better becaue we spend more time playing games than others, and one that is not even true if we look at some of people we call casuals and all the time they put into a game like angry birds) forget that games are a hobby and should be easy to get into but with room to get deeper without trouble.
Making something accesiable allows for people to pick up and play for a couple of hours and then put the game down. On the other side when you have a game with so many different features that it takes fifteen hours just to get out of the tutorial or just to understand the basic mechanics of the game the you might just have a probleam.
Some of the best games are the ones that have a simple and easy to understand gameplay. Minecraft for example the basis of its gameplay is hitting blocks in order to gather them to survie. That is the basic concept of it. These rescources allow you to build a shelter, make weapons and make tools that allows you to gather more rescorces faster.
I think that we as a group of people who consider ourselves 'hardcore' ( a stupid term that infers we are better becaue we spend more time playing games than others, and one that is not even true if we look at some of people we call casuals and all the time they put into a game like angry birds) forget that games are a hobby and should be easy to get into but with room to get deeper without trouble.
Sometimes accessible can be good, if it is achieved without sacrificing depth. Sadly, it seems like many devs have no idea how to do that.
I wait until I hear what they're actually doing before I make judgement. Making games accessible doesn't immediately mean it's suddenly ruined. The problem only really arises when the dev removes the original system completely, instead of having it run parallel. Things like variable difficulties and pre-built classes and characters are good examples of how to do it right.
Im usually concerned. Genre's and to a lesser extent just games tend to appeal to niche markets. Thats where they shine the best. If a game sacrifices its niche to make it more accessable to people that likely wouldnt have played it in the first place I question what the purpose is. If such a thing happens you end up alienating the players who enjoy that niche with no garantee of new players
Complex doesn't mean deep and simple doesn't mean shallow. Go has very simple rules, but has some of deepest strategy in any board game.
The negative connotation associated with making something "accessible" comes from the fact that it often entails taking away any of the challenge associated with a certain reward, thus destroying any use of a reward system. However, when a game is simplified in the proper way, clever use of player agency can still be rewarded, maintaining the ludic agency of the game while making the importance of such elements more visible.
In other words, it's good to makes something easier to understand, but bad to make player action matter less.
The negative connotation associated with making something "accessible" comes from the fact that it often entails taking away any of the challenge associated with a certain reward, thus destroying any use of a reward system. However, when a game is simplified in the proper way, clever use of player agency can still be rewarded, maintaining the ludic agency of the game while making the importance of such elements more visible.
In other words, it's good to makes something easier to understand, but bad to make player action matter less.
I'd rather have 20 games that appeal to different niches than 20 games that are all the same acceptable blandness.
This reasoning just pushes gaming towards a samey interchangeable mess. Of course, it will never reach that point, but gaming should be branching out not caving in. (same applies to movies too)
This reasoning just pushes gaming towards a samey interchangeable mess. Of course, it will never reach that point, but gaming should be branching out not caving in. (same applies to movies too)