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

[Kahunaburger]

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

Emphasis on want to play. The question is not: is the game intended to be accessible to an audience? (Spoilers: yes.) The question is: is accessibility to the intended audience achieved without compromising the game's mechanics?

 

[Xanthious]

Here's the thing. Most people are stupid. No really, they are. Most people are a couple very small steps away from being awe struck when you dangle a set of keys in front of them. So when you hear a game being made accessible to a wider audience it means in so many words that it's having anything that might require more thought than pushing X not die ripped out of it like a turd in a swimming pool.

Let's look at Dragon Age 2 (pinnacle of role playing games indeed Mr Tito ROFL). The developers idea of making it accessible was to turn it into so much of a button mashing action game. They even went so far as to say "When you press a button something awesome has to happen". The reason? Because most people have the attention span of a fly on a coke binge.

The bottom line is that when you hear a game is being made accessible to a wider audience it means it's being made so the unwashed masses will actually be able to play it and that isn't a good thing. As I said before most people are stupid and if a game is being made to cater to them it's very likely it's also being made in a way that it isn't being made to appeal to people who don't sit perplexed in deep thought when you ask them if they know how you confuse an idiot.

As an added bonus I've included a nice 4 hour video explaining the button/awesome connection that I mentioned above. Enjoy!

 

[Nikolaz72]

Here's the thing. Most people are stupid. No really, they are. Most people are a couple very small steps away from being awe struck when you dangle a set of keys in front of them. So when you hear a game being made accessible to a wider audience it means in so many words that it's having anything that might require more thought than pushing X not die ripped out of it like a turd in a swimming pool.

Let's look at Dragon Age 2 (pinnacle of role playing games indeed Mr Tito ROFL). The developers idea of making it accessible was to turn it into so much of a button mashing action game. They even went so far as to say "When you press a button something awesome has to happen". The reason? Because most people have the attention span of a fly on a coke binge.

The bottom line is that when you hear a game is being made accessible to a wider audience it means it's being made so the unwashed masses will actually be able to play it and that isn't a good thing. As I said before most people are stupid and if a game is being made to cater to them it's very likely it's also being made in a way that it isn't being made to appeal to people who don't sit perplexed in deep thought when you ask them if they know how you confuse an idiot.

As an added bonus I've included a nice 4 hour video explaining the button/awesome connection that I mentioned above. Enjoy!

Insult to game-reviewer.
Insult to people who enjoyed Dragonage 2.
Snide comments about how people who enjoyed the game were stupid.

Im happy for you. Clearly you are a fine example of how smart 'real' gamers are.

 

[Xanthious]

Insult to game-reviewer.
Insult to people who enjoyed Dragonage 2.
Snide comments about how people who enjoyed the game were stupid.

Im happy for you. Clearly you are a fine example of how smart 'real' gamers are.

I suppose I could of lied to spare some feelings. Where's the fun in that though?

I can't help people are stupid. It's just the way of things. I can't help that because people aren't too bright that games are being simplified to a level that your average idiot can understand. None of this is my doing.

I really wish people were more intelligent as a whole and their collective stupidity wasn't causing video games to become "dumbed down" and simplified. Hell we could have more games like Hearts of Iron 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire. Your average person would get a headache and go in search of pudding and something shiny if they played these games. Instead people are stupid and we get a deluge of games like Call of Duty and Gears of War.

Again, none of this is my doing. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Insult to game-reviewer.
Insult to people who enjoyed Dragonage 2.
Snide comments about how people who enjoyed the game were stupid.

Im happy for you. Clearly you are a fine example of how smart 'real' gamers are.

I suppose I could of lied to spare some feelings. Where's the fun in that though.

I can't help people are stupid. It's just the way of things. I can't help that because people aren't too bright that games are being simplified to a level that your average idiot can understand. None of this is my doing.

I really wish people were more intelligent as a whole and their collective stupidity wasn't causing video games to become "dumbed down" and simplified. Hell we could have more games like Hearts of Iron 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire. Your average person would get a headache and go in search of pudding and something shiny if they played these games. Instead people are stupid and we get a deluge of games like Call of Duty and Gears of War.

Again, none of this is my doing. I'm just pointing it out.

*Sigh* Not being Civil is the same, or rather. 'Is' acting on feelings, and if we all did that well. We could compare people not being able to hold in their rude opinions with people who cant keep it in their pants.

By that logic I think people who try to keep the rude comments to a minimum around people who could have their feelings hurt by them, are the smartest. And those who go and take a dump on people in an effort to get a reaction out of them, are stupid.

And im sorry, but this is -clearly- your doing. Not blaming Bioware for this one.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Epic said that when they were making Gears of War 3... What they really meant was "Fuck our old fans lets just appeal to cod kids for 2 months before cod actually comes out"

 

[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

Emphasis on want to play. The question is not: is the game intended to be accessible to an audience? (Spoilers: yes.) The question is: is accessibility to the intended audience achieved without compromising the game's mechanics?

and the answer is rarely yes.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

Emphasis on want to play. The question is not: is the game intended to be accessible to an audience? (Spoilers: yes.) The question is: is accessibility to the intended audience achieved without compromising the game's mechanics?

and the answer is rarely yes.

I'd agree with that. No idea what it is about the design process that causes people to "streamline" games by removing the things that made them good - I've seen streamlining done well (AFIAK), but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

 

[Del-Toro]

"We're tired of barely breaking even"

 

[Fappy]

Alarms usually start blaring in my brain. I have met the lowest common denominator. If that is who your game is targeting I don't want anything to do with it.

 

[RuralGamer]

Also known as the "we didn't make enough so the publishers are going to kill us this time should we fail to make a spectacular return on investment" statement in the case of a lot of smaller devs. Or the "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!" statement if we're talking larger devs who have, in attitude, morphed into publishers. With the exception of one game (which may not be an example), this approach has never worked as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

After eight years of watching the World of Warcraft message boards overflow with incomprehensible frothing berserker nerd rage every time any change is made to the game, I've more or less taken the stance that any such announcement is warning that it's time to take the wife and kids and head to the cellar because there's a Shit Storm a'comin!

All kidding aside I guess I can kinda understand the ire that this gets from folks who were already fans of the property and didn't see that it needed changing. I know that the tonal shift between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 took me by surprise.

 

[Dandark]

It can depend but it usaully means they are going to take out some of the things that make a game unique or just add in stuff it doesn't need to appeal to a wider audience. Sadly most of the time this will upset the fans and can easily make a game worse.

A great example is Supreme commander 2. The original was an awesome game, you got to command huge armies of robots from small barely noticable scout units to giant robots towering over the battlefield, with whole squadrans of jets flying overhead in a set pattern and artillary from both land and naval units. Pretty much, a ton of stuff, it was awesome.


Supreme commander 2 was streamlined, a lot. It's still a good RTS but many fans of the original were very dissapointed with it, me included. At the moment this term is seen in the negative but it isn't supposed to be negative.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

They're making something that everyone will buy and hate.

Spoiler

Like Mass Effect 3

 

[Thoric485]

http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/107335-wasteland-2-interview.html [http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/107335-wasteland-2-interview.html]

Brian: ...We will nail down all of this soon but it is critical we make the hardcore happy with this title. I'd rather make a smaller dedicated fan base ecstatic than worry too much about the larger audience.

GB: Unfortunately, role-playing games have lost much of their original identity in recent years, thanks in part to the popularity of first-person action RPGs. How do you convince a newer or younger RPG fan who has grown accustomed to the action-focused titles to give Wasteland 2 a shot?

Brian: Well here is the beauty of fan funding... we don't have to convince some younger RPG player of anything. I am making this game for the wonderful fans who put their money behind us and not some nebulous group of new people. Let's make the game they all expect and let the chips fall where they may. There is just no way I'm going to consider anything that could let down the core.

Feels good man.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

How do you feel when you hear this statement in regards to an upcoming game?

Heh. Captcha: heated debate

"Nooo" ... puke.
These words kill franchises.
On the flip side... i like pleasant suprises.