"We're Making It Accessible to a Wider Audience."

[CrazyBlaze]

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.

What kind of shitty ass old school rpgs have you been playing where all the stats boil down to the same thing ?

Let's celebrate the death of turn based number crunching....

Why does every bullshit criticism of old RPG's see 'number crunching' as some integral part of the combat that makes it too difficult? Dungeon Master? Was that full of 'number crunching'? Might and Magic? Gold Box? Ultima? Sure there were stats and modifiers but to speak as if the combat was some arcane thing which the poor 'average gamer' couldn't be able to work out is a load of fucking shit. Actual combat was for the most part simple to execute-either click on the beast or select an attack from a list and the computer does the rest...what's the fucking problem here? That you have to work out what attacks, weapons, spells work best? That's the REAL 'PROBLEM' with old RPG's isn't it ? That you actually had to THINK during combat encounters instead of clickety fucking click! Right ? "OH NO!, IT'S THAC0! Run boy and girls, he's gonna make our brain hurt!"


It's a paradigm, this "number-crunching" bullshit, nothing more. Media and developers help reinforce the notion that simple addition is so difficult that we're better off spamming the left-click button until the world explodes and we're covered in a pile of steaming achievement-bullshit that tells us how great we are and how fantastic it is that we were able to push that left-click button enough to kill Monster #22151551254


The constraints of modern RPG design... The solution that most game companies are using is "DUMB THAT SHIT DOWN" to make it clear--you jump into the game, you follow your fucking quest compass and hit the awesome button. Ratio fixed, job done, time to call it a day.

Elder's Scrolls (Daggerfall, Morrowind) Baldur's Gate, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (those may because I don't really know much about D&D so the systems seem very unfamiliar to me). And there is nothing wrong about number crunching but do you really think that a lot of people outside a select few like to spend hours number crunching every little thing to make perfect? Because that can become a chore and when a hobby becomes a chore then it is no longer fun. For a lot of people that is what gaming is. A hobby to help relax at the end of the day. Also I'm tired of the notion that games need to be complex to be fun. Look at minecraft, the basis of the game is hitting something to collect resources and use those to build. As simple as you can get. Or Bejeweled where you basicly match tiles. Or pacman where you collect dots while avoiding ghosts. All of those are as simple as you can get and yet they are considerd some of the best games of all time.

 

[predatorpulse7]

It translates to "there are a ton of dumbasses out there with money so we better dumb our game more so the clueless dipshits can play without raging too much".

We're making it more accesible/streamlining it(or some other marketing speak) is code for dumbing the f**k down in 90% of cases.

That's why I'm already worried about AssCreed 3.

Here's what Hutchinson said about AssCreed 2's "complexity" :

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-09-assassins-creed-3-will-be-back-to-basics

Immediacy "is a big problem for us on AC3 actually, and the franchise and general," he said, showing a bewildering chart of the mechanics and gameplay loops in Assassin's Creed 2. "It's a hugely complicated game, it has many different features, it's a long game, getting people up to speed as quickly as possible is a big challenge. We know we have a learning curve, we know we need to introduce a lot of new mechanics, so what we looked at was reducing the time to assassinate.

"In AC3, we promise you that within 30 seconds of putting the disc in the tray, you will in fact be assassinating someone. That's a promise."

This guy is saying that AssCreed 2's mechanics were complex which is freaking laughable, all you do is press a direction to move forward and jump gapd/jump off buildings and you can basically win every battle by countering each individual attack(the enemies will line up nicely for you).

And the 30 sec bit makes me fear that this is made to appeal to the bro type of gamers.

Making a very simple game like AssCreed even simpler is facepalm worthy to me.

 

[Manji187]

Beaten to it by at least 10 people, probably: "We want more money".

 

[ElPatron]

I despise it because, as a console gamer, I end up getting blamed for a lack of options that almost all console gamers want just as much as PC gamers. Options like full mapping of controls, yada yada.

It is possible to use a console control scheme and have a deep game at the same time. And it's possible to translate that depth to PC.

What you can't have are simulators and the usual RTS with lots of shortcuts.

But I would definitely play a realistic shooter made to focus more on tactics and execution than on pressing the button sequences to give orders. If the original Operation Flashpoint had a Comm Rose like in BF2 it would make combat more accessible as you would be able to fight while giving orders to your squad.

Spoiler: My biggest problem with consoles is not really a problem.

Consoles usually don't change their hardware during their life cycle. It somewhat gives the excuse to not push forward with engines.

Look at the changes between CoD4 and MW2. They are very noticeable. Compare to MW3, and you understand that they aren't wasting time fixing their engine - a lot of bugs from past games still show up and it seems like they never get fixed patch after patch.

I don't want better graphics, but it would be nice if developers stopped making games that were quick to go trough so that they cash in the next year. TAKE SOME TIME TO FIX ENGINE PROBLEMS, YOU!

 

[Vegosiux]

Just look at new Hitman.

We havnt seen much of it yet. Save the judgement.

Dropping Bateson as 47's voice actor is quite enough for me to pass a negative judgement.

It depends.

"We're making it accessible to a wider audience."

You are optimizing and refining certain mechanics so that those who are less patient or inclined can wrap their head around a specific game or play style. This allows a greater number of people to enjoy your fundamental gaming experience.

/thumbs up

"We're making it marketable to a wider audience."

Your game just isn't 'hip' with today's youth. Let's throw in some Dubstep or internet memes... I don't care if your game is a medieval fantasy, the kids will eat it up. Fans of the series you say? If they were truly fans, they'd accept these changes as rational progression.

/thumbs have broken through concrete

Well I am inclined to agree that this is a very good point. But, what is a "fundamental" gaming experience? That's not exactly clear, one could say it's starting the game then pushing buttons until you get to "A winner is you!" screen. And the way streamlining has been going lately...

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Just look at new Hitman.

We havnt seen much of it yet. Save the judgement.

Dropping Bateson as 47's voice actor is quite enough for me to pass a negative judgement.

Especially since he was available, and he called them and sent them e-mails. They didn't respond. It's clear as day that they don't give a fuck about veteran fans. They want a new audience and are creating a game for such audience. Kane and Lynch team are in charge, not the original Hitman team.
Also, Hitman: Absolution will have checkpoints. How can a game set in nonlinear levels feature checkpoints?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

 

[Kahunaburger]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

Sistine Chapel ceiling: not art. You heard it here first, folks.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

Sistine Chapel ceiling: not art. You heard it here first, folks.

You think he stopped at any point and thought "while this does express my love for the beauty of god, i'm not sure if the peasants will 'get it' let me add an explosion in"

 

[Kahunaburger]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

Sistine Chapel ceiling: not art. You heard it here first, folks.

You think he stopped at any point and thought "while this does express my love for the beauty of good, i'm not sure if the peasants will 'get it' let me add an explosion in"

No, but he did think: what can I get away with while still getting paid?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

Sistine Chapel ceiling: not art. You heard it here first, folks.

You think he stopped at any point and thought "while this does express my love for the beauty of god, i'm not sure if the peasants will 'get it' let me add an explosion in"

No, but he did think: what can I get away with while still getting paid?

I dunno, for me art is about pure expression, if an artist wasn't expressing themselves then it isn't art, just a pretty picture

 

[nothingspringstomind]

Personally, i think "oh God, now there's going to be less content i want, and more Tits and bloom effects."

 

[Sacman]

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.

Heh just look at Deus Ex Invisible war...

a classic case... even the developers admitted that it was for the worse...<.<

 

[Zeema]

i go 'dam i can't wait to sift thru the repeat thread's

 

[Kahunaburger]

If you make art for an audience you will never make art

Sistine Chapel ceiling: not art. You heard it here first, folks.

You think he stopped at any point and thought "while this does express my love for the beauty of god, i'm not sure if the peasants will 'get it' let me add an explosion in"

No, but he did think: what can I get away with while still getting paid?

I dunno, for me art is about pure expression, if an artist wasn't expressing themselves then it isn't art, just a pretty picture

Well, that's not a very good definition of art (it excludes basically everything we consider art), but back on the subject of games, can we actually say any game was made purely as expression and not as something people would theoretically want to play?

 

[veloper]

Wider audience here means a *different* audience, that happens to be much bigger.

That's why it always pisses of fans of the original game. They'll regret supporting such company with their money, when the company goes the opposite direction.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

It's one of those " depends on the situation"
things.

Mostly this. But a lot of times, it just means "publisher mandate".

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Depends. That could mean anything from removing all gameplay except one button to press to simply adding it to other platforms.

 

[Woodsey]

It makes me want to rip out my eyes. Very, very rarely does the game then live up to it's predecessors once that phrase has been uttered.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

back on the subject of games, can we actually say any game was made purely as expression and not as something people would theoretically want to play?

the two aren't mutually exclusive. Playing a game is the equivalent of watching a film or reading a book, it is the verb associated to the art, so 'playing' a game will never counteract expression