Gamers are interesting

Comments

• O_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790

  February 2016

  I think you misunderstand something. Adding something new to the franchise is not the same as changing it in the way it doesn't remind itself anymore.
  
  You used BG:DA as example. Baldur's Gate is an rpg game using DnD mechanics. The Dark Alliance series are Hack and Slash with some rpg element. That's a big difference, instead of feeling like Baldur's Gate game, it feels like it has Baldur's Gate makeover. Hence people doesn't like it.
  
  And now, different example. Fallouts were tactical rpgs, later they become just rpgs, because first person perspective pretty much negated tactics in them. But they were still rpgs. Now, Fallout 4. Most of the rpg elements are either non-existent or dumbed down to the core. Fallout 4 is basically FPS with some rpg elements. The result is, people still call this shit good game somehow. At that point I can agree, gamers are intersting.
  
  Now, let's look at good sequels. I've never played Spyro, but I'll use other platformers as an example. Rayman 2 and 3. The 3rd one changed some mechanics and art style from 2nd, but it was still a platformer, a good one at that. Basically, changes were made, but the core of the game remained intact.
  
  What good sequels should do is adding to the previous games without destroing this "core".
  
  Now, sure, some games are hated for too much changes (the ones that destroys the "core" of the game), some games, like CoD, are bashed for lack of changes. In CoD's case, I think it is because the game is just generic. Fun for multiplayer (as I'm told), but generic. Nowadays you won't see shooters like, for example, Quake or Painkiller. You know, one with map exploration and interesting twists to them.
  
  I also think gamer's reaction to lack of changes (or to essentialy destroying the core of the game) is also based on publisher/developer. People love Nintendo, so they aren't bothered when they are re-using level design in Mario games. People still somehow like Bethesda, even if they are constantly dumbing down their games to the point I can say Fallout franchise is dead. As I said, Fallout 4 is basically shooter with minor rpg elements. Since people still like and don't criticize Bethesda enough, the game sold very well, meaning the next Fallout is going to be like 4th. Fallout is dead.
  
  

  0
• DragonKing Member Posts: 1,977

  February 2016

  @O_Bruce
  Ah yes, the "core", the very topic I expected to see brought up as a reply to me. My reply to that is simple, have we learned nothing from Nintendo? The core of the Mario series has been The single most changed "play" of any game franchise I've ever seen. From jump man, to super Mario world, to Mario kart, Mario's party, Mario sunshine, Luigi's mansion . Before these things were milked for money, these were all evolutions of a single game that was about jumping over a barrel to save a woman from a nameless gorilla.
  
  That one series proved that a games core can be changed and still be great. No you can argue that, they are a separate franchises all under the same banner, but that banner at its very core was about jumping over things and onto the heads of other things and people simply accept it.
  
  OK, I actually having a question here, I played dark alliance before baldur's gate... well not really, but I don't count the time that I was a little neophyte just playing random things on different peoples computers. Did DA claim to be the sequel to the BG series? Did it try to tie itself into BG in any other way than just the name a d location? If not than all I'm seeing is a repeat of the final fantasy movie. That movie made no claim to the game series and ff fans "itched" and moaned about the movie having nothing to do with the series and using two words together that existed before the franchise together. If it actually claimed to have some type of spiritual connection to the original BG then I'd call some of the hate justified.
  
  With that said, not all change is good, the sonic series is proof of this. In some series they stayed true to the core, but still the game weren't that great.
  
  Another series I can mention as proof of this is vampires the masquerade bloodlines. They added multiple features to a great came, staying close to the core but still ruined it, example if blood, or stamina hits 0 you die, even if you have full health.
  
  So changing the core of the game is still part of the games evolution. You can always keep the games core the same to play itself, but I do respect the companies that are willing to expand their core (halo wars!) Even if that expansion isn't great or amazing. Can every company take the risk? No, and that's understandable since they are still businesses that are trying to survive and that isn't necessarily what this post is about.
  
  As far as not seeing shooters like quake that encourage exploration and plot twist? I can't agree or deny that, I believe there is still hope but I also do remember old shooters like 007 encouraging exploration either... plot twist on the other hand!

  0
• elminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315

  February 2016

  DragonKing said:

  Did DA claim to be the sequel to the BG series? Did it try to tie itself into BG in any other way than just the name a d location?

  They reused a few locations (like Baldur's Gate, specific locations like the Elfsong Tavern) but I don't think it referenced anything specific from the pc games.

  0
• the_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

  February 2016

  @DragonKing - I think that where you are maybe confused is you are seeing 'Change' itself as the factor. Things CAN change and people can still like something that changes. I'd call out the Metroid series (Because Fallout is way to polarizing) as example. The original Metroid was fantastic (in my subjective view). Then along came Metroid Prime and it was revitalized. it was a very different style of game, going from a side scroller to a more shooter style game. It was also fantastic, but for very different reasons.
  
  Talking about Baldur's gate and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance as 'The same game but with changes' is not really the case. And it wasn't so much that things 'Changed' so much as the style of game did not appeal to the type of people who played Baldur's gate. There may be people out there for whom BG:Dark Alliance was Brilliant and exactly what they are looking for. By and large, that style of game play was not what the majority of Baldur's gate fans wanted or expected from a Baldur's gate game.
  
  For some, any change at all is a reason to complain, it is true. I don't think this is restricted to 'Gamers' per say. But for most of us, it is about how well done the changes are and if they are done with an eye towards something that the fan base actually wants or will adopt to.
  
  

  0
• Dee Member Posts: 10,447

  February 2016 edited February 2016

  Gamers don't dislike change; they dislike compromise. You can add things to a game, but if you take something away, there will be players who miss that thing, and they'll say that it's no longer the game they fell in love with.
  
  There are some things you can ditch without being thrown to the sharks (HoMM Thieves Guilds, I'm looking at you), but if you switch the gameplay perspective like Metroid Prime did, you're going to have an uphill battle with regard to selling your new concept to the fanbase. Nintendo pulled it off, partly because the sidescroller nature of Metroid was never what made that game interesting; it was about shooting aliens and exploring strange worlds, and Prime let that core shine. And it was still essentially a platforming game, just first-person.
  
  Fallout 3, on the other hand, switched from an isometric, turn-based game into a first-person, real-time game. The reason this was more controversial for a lot of people is that the core concept of the first Fallout games was this: You have very few resources, the world is desolate, and every decision you make could be the difference between life and death. It embraced that concept by forcing you to consider each decision in that turn-based context, so that when you inevitably died, you understood that it was a reality of the world, not your inability to press X quickly enough. The VATS system was a nod to the old turn-based days, but it still depends on player dexterity to survive long enough in real-time to be able to activate it.
  
  So Fallout 3 added something (real-time combat and the suspense and thrill it offers), but took something away (turn-based combat and the feeling of suspense as you choose your next action). There's a thin line between suspense and thrill, but it's an important one.
  
  Call of Duty, meanwhile, hasn't really innovated on gameplay. Part of this is because they don't really need to; they release a new game every year, they iterate on the game's core concepts, and the fans come out in droves on release day because all their friends are about to start playing the new game in the series. It works for them; but for most gamers--not CoD "fans", but ordinary gamers--look at this approach and see stagnation. Activision's not making any mistakes, but they're also not taking any risks.

  1
• O_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790

  February 2016

  @DragonKing
  First thing first, by "twists" I did not meant "plot twists". Especially in context of first person shooters. By twist I meant unique setting, mood, gameplay mechanics etc. Nowadays you won't find exploration-based FPS where you, for example, fight literarly in purgatory against demons. Instead, now most popular games of the genre are generic soldier-on-generic-conflict situations.
  
  About Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age. I've heard that the latter was advertized as "spritual succesor of Baldur's Gate" or something like that. I don't reall know, since I never played Dragon Age, only heard very mixed opinion on multiple entries in the series.
  
  I think there is the difference between changing the core and adding to it/improving it. You can add, take away or trade-off some elements between entries in a game franchise, and still keep general feeling of the game at satisfactionary level. Each entry in, for example Diablo franchise, adds and takes away something. Yet all games are feeling like, well, Diablo games. Had Diablo 4 was someday released and it was to suddenly became first-person perspective, I would be... angry.
  
  

  0
• DragonKing Member Posts: 1,977

  February 2016

  @O_Bruce
  DA meant dark alliance not dragon age origins, or I would've said DAO. Yes, I already know that DAO was suppose to be the spiritual successor to BG, and personally I very well enjoyed dao... da2 on the other hand... Also, wasn't Diablo 3 very wow-ish? I remember reading a lot of complaints about it.
  
  @the_spyder
  That maybe the case in my view of the subject, but I see the change itself s the least biased part of the argument. No biased isn't the appropriate word I'm looking for. Its just that while the change in itself can be swayed by the fans, many times the change in itself is of the developers on choosing and doing. (not all of course) followed by the very fanbase using what would literally be viewed as Appeal to tradition/popularity fallacy type of arguments to justify their hate of it. I also agree, with you, for some any change at ll is a reason to complain.

  0
• abacus Member Posts: 1,307

  February 2016

  I think a big part of it is the gamer's classic fantasy: to be able to play "that" game again for the first time... to feel that particular story or universe opening up again without meta-knowledge.
  
  To find yourself again in the woods outside Candlekeep, or on the dock at Shadow Moses, or on the bridge of the Normandy with no idea what you're doing or where it will all end up...
  
  But time passes and each game is of its own time. Mechanics and graphics and market trends have shifted, and you, the gamer, have also changed.
  
  Your expectations for game 2 are higher, purely because of the impact game 1 had on you... you're immediately starting game 2 with a less open mind.... you have preconceptions about how you want it to be. And if game 2 fails to meet any of those preconceptions, you have an emotional response that you would never have had if you hadn't played game 1.
  
  
  
  Plus Raiden....
  Fuck Raiden.
  Raiden's a douche.

  0
• the_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

  February 2016

  @DragonKing - You are right in that change is not always driven by even the developers and hardly ever by the fans. Often times someone would come up with an idea and someone else will say "How about we shoe-horn that into this other genre so that we can tap into some of that market fan base." That is what I suspect happened with the Baldur's gate: Dark Alliance games. Someone wanted to make a 'Console' based adventure game and so they said "Hey, Baldur's Gate is an adventure game. Let's use THAT as a basis."
  
  But that isn't 'Change' from the perspective of 'Core' elements of the game. That "Usually" happens because someone (Developer or producer) WANTS something different but either they want to boost their sales, or they are shackled with an idea because of factors that have very little to do with what the end consumer may want.
  
  Another factor is where someone goes out looking for a development house to make the next iteration of a game and they buy into the sales pitch of some company that offers something vastly different than what came before. "Hey, we wanted a shooter game but you think you can make a racing game that would be In the same universe? Tell me more" (as for example).
  
  I suspect that was what happened to the Fallout Franchise. The franchise sat for something like a decade on a dusty (metaphorical) shelf with a handful of rabid fans wanting a sequel until Bethesda came along and said "We've had great success with The Elder Scrolls franchise going 1st person/3rd person 3D. There's a market for Fallout. Let's see what happens if we merge the two concepts." (I don't know if that is the way it played out but that is what I felt at the time). They sell the franchise holder on the idea that they can make money off of the concept, or they buy up the franchise because they think it will be lucrative for themselves and hey-presto. we get something completely new-ish.
  
  My point is that these changes weren't because a portion of the fan base said "We want X - feature" but more from developers looking to either further a franchise or revitalize one, or simply someone being sold on the idea that a change of direction will bring them more money.
  
  Unfortunately not all of the changes pan out. But it isn't the mere fact of 'Change' that is the culprit (in most cases) but the way and direction and relative competency of the execution of that change. In some cases it is gangbusters. In quite a lot of cases not.
  
  And then again there are those who will simply complain because of someone moving their cheese (change itself), but I would hope that is in the minority.

  0
• wraith5641 Member Posts: 500

  February 2016

  There are a couple of reasons why people attack CoD.
  
  First and foremost, it's because the Call of Duty community is widely regarded as the worst in gaming. The worst kind of bigots get on the mic in CoD. Then you have annoying little kids who have absolutely no self control aggravating other players. It's just toxic, and discourages cooperative gameplay. When your player base despises each other and can't treat each other with respect and common courtesy, it's going to divide the community and put off newcomers from participating. Gaming should bring people together, not be divisive like CoD is.
  
  Secondly, it's easy to judge people that buy a game from a franchise year after year when it has been proven to be generic each time they release a new title. CoD has been terrible for 7 or 8 years, yet people are happy to conform and throw away their money. It says a lot about people that do that. I mean, you would have to have pretty low standards.
  
  The reason why Baldur's Gate has such a great community is because you have to be fairly intelligent to be good at it. It's far more complex than the mindless "run & gun" gameplay of CoD. You have to take the time to rationally assess different situations and analyze your next move. That's why when you look around this forum, 99% of the responses to questions are rational and logical. Those are the kind of people BG attracts. CoD doesn't attract a lot of "thinkers." You don't need to be a thinker to play it.
  
  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with not playing games that require a lot of thought, but if you are a fan of RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, your standards are so much higher and it enables you to see games like CoD for what they are.
  
  CoD would be a lot better if the people working on it were passionate and not in it just to make as much money as possible. CoD isn't the only game like this, of course. In fact, the majority of big-name titles these days are no better, especially in the FPS genre. It's just sad how superficial the gaming industry has become.

  0
• the_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

  February 2016

  A lot of more adversarial games do tend to promote and even thrive on a community that is antagonistic towards each other, it's true. CoD definitely tends to be that, but I don't know if it is the majority of players so much as a VERY vocal minority. Certainly it appears to be a popular enough phenomenon such that it is almost a foregone conclusion. But I found quite a lot of that type of thing with the Dark Souls community as well, so I am not sure I buy into the 'dumbed down' philosophy so much as it appeals to more aggressive types.
  
  My personal opinion is that games like CoD tend to be less fanciful than a lot of other games and therefore more easily adoptable towards the more generic gamers. That segment of the gaming community that doesn't want dragons or aliens or fuzzy blue creatures invading their game space because 'That would be weird' can get along quite nicely with CoD and other games.
  
  Role play games and the like don't "Necessarily" require or draw a smarter crowd as there are strategies and tactics that are required to play even FPS games. But there is a higher aggression factor with those types of games, thus appealing to more testosterone laiden people. And yes, the whole customization/min-max/specialization that can go into some RPG games do absolutely lend themselves more to the inner math genius that tends to reside more in the geek squad than the football team.
  
  So I am not sure I buy into RPG games being objectively 'Better' so much as drawing a more cerebral and geeky crowd whereas games like CoD draw more of a physically aggressive casual gamer style of play. In that, I think that not a lot of originality is probably key to a game like CoD.

  0
• wraith5641 Member Posts: 500

  February 2016

  the_spyder said:

  That segment of the gaming community that doesn't want dragons or aliens or fuzzy blue creatures invading their game space because 'That would be weird' can get along quite nicely with CoD and other games.

  To be fair, CoD does have zombies. CoD: Ghosts even had an alien mode....

  1
• O_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790

  February 2016

  @DragonKing
  Answering your question, visually - yes, a bit. Gameplay-wise? No, not at all. Diablo is still loot-based hack and slash game with rpg elements. And as I said, each next installment took something away and give something/replaced something. But at the core, all Diablo games feel like Diablo games should. But not a single change was drastic enough to make me stop caring about franchise.
  
  Also, I bet you've heard many bad things about Diablo 3. It was dissapointing at release, after all.

  0
• the_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

  February 2016

  @wraith5641 - I did not know. I guess we learn something new every day.
  
  @O_Bruce - maybe for you but every Diablo game has felt fundamentally different to me. And while I liked both D1 and D2 (for very different reasons), I felt that the most recent iteration took quite a lot away and didn't return very much at all. It just failed my personal and subjective criteria on more ways than I wish to count. But that's off topic.

  0
• O_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790

  February 2016

  @the_spyder
  Well, at release day, sure, I can't blame you for feeling this way. But by what D3 is today, nope. Not at all. For die-hard fans of D2 it is worth to remember that D2 wasn't that great at once - it greatness was result of expansion and lots of patches. In D3, it is going to be the same.

  0
• JuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,724

  February 2016

  @the_spyder Blizzards offers an option of free gameplay till your character reaches the 10th level, you can try an unlimited amount of characters. So if you want to see what Diablo 3 is now, take this offer and see yourself.
  
  @O_Bruce Although Diablo 3 has indeed become a much better game than at the release, I should say that I played Diablo 2 at release, without any patches and an expansion, and fell in love at once. The subsequent patches and an expansion made it better. While patches and expansions for Diablo 3 are trying (and successfully) to turn a game with a lot of bad sides to a good game.

  0
• the_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

  February 2016 edited February 2016

  @O_bruce and @bengoshi - thanks both of you. I'll have to give that some thought. I played D3 for months trying to like the changes, and that was with not purchasing it for 3-4 months after launch so I am not sure where that falls in the 'Development' scheme of things. But it may be worth a second try I guess.
  
  I'll say that they will have had to change quite a lot of core gameplay in order to win me over. But hey, anything is possible.

  Post edited by the_spyder on February 2016

  1