I usually interpret it to mean they're stripping originality out of the game's narrative, characterization, and aesthetic design. Financiers don't want to spend 30-50 million on a core structure any less saturated than, say, Lord of the Rings. Gameplay, it can go in any direction, but usually means cribbing notes from the current 10 million seller.
"We're Making It Accessible to a Wider Audience."
- Thread starter Mr. Eff_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Making it accesible in itself is no problem, it's how it is handled that is important.
For instance, take the ME3 selection of Story, RPG or Action. This doesn't change the core gameplay, you can choose to use whatever is best for you. If you like the original, you can play it that way. If you don't care for story, you don't have to make all the decisions. Whether you think it's dumbing down or not, it doesn't affect you if you just choose RPG mode. This is a good implementation.
Opening it up allows more players, and as such allows companies to make more money, and that's not a bad thing, if they aren't alienating earlier fans.
For instance, take the ME3 selection of Story, RPG or Action. This doesn't change the core gameplay, you can choose to use whatever is best for you. If you like the original, you can play it that way. If you don't care for story, you don't have to make all the decisions. Whether you think it's dumbing down or not, it doesn't affect you if you just choose RPG mode. This is a good implementation.
Opening it up allows more players, and as such allows companies to make more money, and that's not a bad thing, if they aren't alienating earlier fans.
If it's a remake or sequel to a game I like then yeah a little shudder inside (especially if it's a remake). In this case I revert to the hope that the phrase - devils in the detail will save me - then I get the detail and go - "meh".
However if it's a new title then don't really care as it makes sense to appeal to as many people as possible so seems a no brainer.
However if it's a new title then don't really care as it makes sense to appeal to as many people as possible so seems a no brainer.
I don't pay it any attention what so ever. I'll know if I want to buy the game once I've seen the finished product and, a few reviews unless it's a franchise I'm already a great fan of. Even then it doesn't matter much to me although, in some cases it gives me a reason to grumble. Like after playing Mass Effect 2 or, Dragon Age 2 when compared to their originals. I can see cover-based shooting being a draw for people but resource mining? I can also see hack-n-slash/beat-em-up being a draw to people but why confine it to a handful of locales and market the thing as a hardcore RPG like its predecessor?
although you'd generally think this would be a positive statement i tend to cringe when i hear it because it often means that the gameplay of a beloved franchise is going to simplified just for the sake of it being simpler. some companies can get away with this, take valve with tf2 (at least when it was new anyway) but most of the time it all just goes horribly wrong.
Do you not have better things to do in your life than invade every fucking thread and turn it into some anti- ME3 whining bullcrap?Zeel said:
Also, how did they have to streamline the conversations to do it? That's bollocks, it's easy just to always take the renegade or paragon option or whatever, no need to change the dialogue options.
Depends on what "making it accessible to a wider audience" actually means. It could be anything from removing some annoying micromanagement to turning it into a 6-hour long FPS. To me, what they are doing is more important than why they are doing it.
it really does depend on the game, but in my mind whenever a publisher/developer states that about their upcoming game it most often means "we're dumbing it down so we can reach a wider demographic, so we can earn more money and possibly capture call of duty's audience" and that can displease the fanbase of whatever series, and/or work in the game's disavantage by getting shallower and as such, stray away from unusual or "complicated" ideas that would be interesting to see.
However I'm not saying a shallow or simple game is bad, but again it depends on what you're going for, if you're making an rpg more shallow, then it works against the whole concept of role playing games, while for example a handheld/ios puzzle game will do much better as a simpler and less deep experience. Action games can be shallow but still fun to play, but it can sometimes leave the game unremarkable unless you have something unique that it thrives upon.
let's take an example like Journey, the recent masterpiece (imo) from thegamecompany, it's so simple, minimalistic, shallow even in its gameplay, but simple things like sliding in sand, interacting with the second player to overcome obstacles and the way that world and vague story is crafter working together with the stunning visual composition makes the game remarkable despite its "shallow" gameplay.
Now we're discussing the gamedev/publisher quote here, so I'll just say I'm opposed to it, because that exact quote imo usually means "we're making this game dumber so we can cash in"
However I'm not saying a shallow or simple game is bad, but again it depends on what you're going for, if you're making an rpg more shallow, then it works against the whole concept of role playing games, while for example a handheld/ios puzzle game will do much better as a simpler and less deep experience. Action games can be shallow but still fun to play, but it can sometimes leave the game unremarkable unless you have something unique that it thrives upon.
let's take an example like Journey, the recent masterpiece (imo) from thegamecompany, it's so simple, minimalistic, shallow even in its gameplay, but simple things like sliding in sand, interacting with the second player to overcome obstacles and the way that world and vague story is crafter working together with the stunning visual composition makes the game remarkable despite its "shallow" gameplay.
Now we're discussing the gamedev/publisher quote here, so I'll just say I'm opposed to it, because that exact quote imo usually means "we're making this game dumber so we can cash in"
Depends on the skill of the people making a game.
It's very possible to create a deep, intricate game that's also accessible without dumbing much (or anything) down.
Skyrim was very accessible and it still offers an insanely deep RPG experience. From what I heard, most are satisfied with it.
It's only when designers think "accessible" means "stupid" that problems occur. Accessibility just means it's easy to get into, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy in a difficulty sense or in the sense of themes and story structure.
A lot of designers and publishers don't seem to get that the average consumer doesn't necessarily need "baby's first (whatever genre)". Most gamers can handle complexity, and some even enjoy it, designers just need to be willing to take a chance.
It's very possible to create a deep, intricate game that's also accessible without dumbing much (or anything) down.
Skyrim was very accessible and it still offers an insanely deep RPG experience. From what I heard, most are satisfied with it.
It's only when designers think "accessible" means "stupid" that problems occur. Accessibility just means it's easy to get into, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy in a difficulty sense or in the sense of themes and story structure.
A lot of designers and publishers don't seem to get that the average consumer doesn't necessarily need "baby's first (whatever genre)". Most gamers can handle complexity, and some even enjoy it, designers just need to be willing to take a chance.
It depends, really. Hell, just make the tutorial good, and that's it! You won't have to dumb the game down at all! Introduce concepts one at a time, and in a manageable way, and done!
Good intention.
Horrible execution.
If you have an audience for a game, you don't want to alienate it. A lot of people you want to reach won't like the game anyway and the fanbase will want you dead.
I suppose it's reasonable if you want to make a DOtA clone that can be picked up by anyone in a few hours, no matter the skill level.
But let me say that it would deviate from the dota stereotype and people into those games probably wouldn't want to play it even if it featured comparable depth.
EDIT: I thought about realistic shooters.
I find it very reasonable to give players the option to make the enemy IA a little more forgiving, give you more time before soldiers bleed out, probably make ballistic plates more durable against bullet impacts, reduce range of fragments in explosions, make vehicles a little "blind" so that you won't get sniped by a tank round from 8km away, etc. Perhaps even allow you to spring longer and faster even if you have 30 kg of weapons, ammo and gear on you.
That isn't the same thing as streamlining the game to the point you're handling a bullet hose and your ballistic plates can stop 50 bullets (although technically ballistic plates like that exist).
Revamping the "command" system so that you could easily send orders to squadmates would not "dumb down" the game. It would only make it faster paced and more realistic.
Horrible execution.
If you have an audience for a game, you don't want to alienate it. A lot of people you want to reach won't like the game anyway and the fanbase will want you dead.
I suppose it's reasonable if you want to make a DOtA clone that can be picked up by anyone in a few hours, no matter the skill level.
But let me say that it would deviate from the dota stereotype and people into those games probably wouldn't want to play it even if it featured comparable depth.
EDIT: I thought about realistic shooters.
I find it very reasonable to give players the option to make the enemy IA a little more forgiving, give you more time before soldiers bleed out, probably make ballistic plates more durable against bullet impacts, reduce range of fragments in explosions, make vehicles a little "blind" so that you won't get sniped by a tank round from 8km away, etc. Perhaps even allow you to spring longer and faster even if you have 30 kg of weapons, ammo and gear on you.
That isn't the same thing as streamlining the game to the point you're handling a bullet hose and your ballistic plates can stop 50 bullets (although technically ballistic plates like that exist).
Revamping the "command" system so that you could easily send orders to squadmates would not "dumb down" the game. It would only make it faster paced and more realistic.
And let me say that the game was so well paced that most players would be able to get a grip on the gameplay without even playing the tutorial.rhizhim said:
The only example of this i can remember buying into was Monster Hunter Tri.
Capcom said it was to be more accessible to a wider audience, and it was.
But it didnt compromise what i knew to expect from a Monster Hunter game, having sunk an inhuman ammount of time into the PSP games.
However what did compromise it was that it was technically a reboot, and the content, while fresh, was a mere fraction of what i had in Monster Hunter Freedom Unite.
Capcom said it was to be more accessible to a wider audience, and it was.
But it didnt compromise what i knew to expect from a Monster Hunter game, having sunk an inhuman ammount of time into the PSP games.
However what did compromise it was that it was technically a reboot, and the content, while fresh, was a mere fraction of what i had in Monster Hunter Freedom Unite.
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
"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
First of all: LoL has only that much sucsses because DotA appealed to a huge audience. DotA still has one of the biggest player bases on the world (Still around ~9 Million players China not included).Aircross said:
When it comes to balancing LoL and DotA are really the same. LoL acutally has more competitive playable champs than DotA.
The main reason why DotA seems deeper is, that they've yet the better competitive community. There are more top Teams => more competition => more playstyles etc.
Right now, we've the same ~10 teams showing up in LoL - thats the main issue.
Anyway, i don't wann derail this thread to much.
Usually I assume it means the game is going to improve its UI and things designed to catch attention at the cost of creativity. It varies some from game to game, sometimes it goes all one way or all the other, but that's usually a safe assumption to make.
Well, sometimes it works better. Games like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and Final Fantasy VII are a lot more accessible than previous titles, and are a lot deeper.
The problem is, these games are about 15 years old. No developer knows how to keep/increase depth AND broaden its audience in modern days.
The problem is, these games are about 15 years old. No developer knows how to keep/increase depth AND broaden its audience in modern days.
It really comes down to the developer/publisher. There are very few of them left that are respectable in what they do, and because of that, unfortunately, 9 out of 10 times it means a lower quality game.
Either way, it is a term that a developer should never use. The only thing they should say, and do, is "We are going to make the best content we can".
Either way, it is a term that a developer should never use. The only thing they should say, and do, is "We are going to make the best content we can".
Could mean anything from: We're cleaning up the UI to make it easier for beginners to learn, and more convenient for experienced players.
To: We're turning an Isometric RPG into a multiplayer FPS
Making a game Accessible is not always a bad thing, but from what I've seen, most developers/publishers tend to veer more towards some sort of extreme.
For example: The original version of X-COM could do with a graphic update and better UI and a small tutorial. (perhaps a single hand-holding mission to get a feel for the Geoscape/Battlescape phases) None of that is by any means bad (I would just add a way to load without bailing on a mission) but as someone who didn't have a manual, the UI seemed kind of foreign to me. Than I watched a Let's Play, and I figured it out.
X-COMis was getting a remake as an FPS to make is more approachable, where as just updating a few things would make it completely approachable by anyone else.
To: We're turning an Isometric RPG into a multiplayer FPS
Making a game Accessible is not always a bad thing, but from what I've seen, most developers/publishers tend to veer more towards some sort of extreme.
For example: The original version of X-COM could do with a graphic update and better UI and a small tutorial. (perhaps a single hand-holding mission to get a feel for the Geoscape/Battlescape phases) None of that is by any means bad (I would just add a way to load without bailing on a mission) but as someone who didn't have a manual, the UI seemed kind of foreign to me. Than I watched a Let's Play, and I figured it out.
X-COM
depends on the game but generally
"making it easy for morons, cause that what you all are to us"
"making it easy for morons, cause that what you all are to us"
