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

[Emiscary]

Translates roughly to: we're going to homogenize the game.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

It usually means it will incorpirate various degrees of blandness, lack of difficulty, multiplayer that is often ungodly imbalanced, dumbing down everything, making the adverts juvinile and forgetable and adding pro-right-wing-USA gunwank.

So yeah, I dont like that phrase.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Seems to me that the only people who have a real problem with making a game more accessible are the "incredibly elitist" within their respective genre/series. It's like the thought of anyone who didn't play the series when it first came out shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it.

 

[daveman247]

Just look at new Hitman.

We havnt seen much of it yet. Save the judgement.
Then again if it turns out like conviction...


OT: Depends on how they tackle it, like others have said. Taking things away entirely is a no-no. Streamlining a few things or making a better effort to explain/ lower the player in to the mechanics turns out much better.

 

[MammothBlade]

I tend to associate accessibility to a wider audience with dumbing down. When developers say "we want to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd", I wrinkle my nose in disgust. However, there is a sweet spot... some games can go over to the far end of the scale, and have such a complex and unwieldy interface that even most seasoned, intelligent gamers cannot get into them. Widening the appeal of a game from masochists to altogether more balanced people is often a good idea. (no offence to masochists)

There are better ways of articulating accessibility. Making a game more "player-friendly" and "intuitive" is reasonable enough, equivalent to cutting out the gristle to make the meat altogether more appetising.

Appealing to the CoD crowd typically means focusing on instant gratification, adding unnecessary hints, lowering the quality and depth of the story to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and all the while reducing complexity of gameplay. Whatever, that came out a bit wrong. Just what I'm trying to say is, people are not the same. You make something catch-all, you're pretty much certain to disillusion the original fanbase, because now a million morons are obsessed with the latest Zelda game but are completely ignorant of previous titles in the series and when exposed to them, complain that they are for "geeks".

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

If I have the game it means... we are going to to strip what the hardcore fans of the previous game(s) liked, and dumb it down so that idiot in your class/work, who you are silently smug about playing more complex games than, can pretend to know everything about your favourite series...

If I don't have the game it means: Hey Elementary, that series you couldn't be bothered to get into because it looked too complicated is now being made for you... quick, read about the predecessor(s), complete the new easier version... and go find some of the original fans to tell all about how much you love the series...

I think I am noticing a pattern...

 

[Nyaoku]

Here we go:
First off, dumbing it down for the more casual groups. Maybe, if you're lucky, variable difficulty.
2nd: More gimmicks. They're gonna try to say it can do everything, but not that if focuses on nothing.
3: The price is gonna stay up there. Need I say more.
4: We didn't get enough money from you the first time.
5: This game's gonna get its servers shut down early due to all everyone easily being distracted by the next thing.
6: ... Not again.
7: Budget got cut so endgame's gonna suffer.
8: DLC ... They're gonna try to fix it somehow ... and charge you while at it.
9: It's going to be unbalanced. Exploits are gonna slip through the cracks.
10: Food $ > want for this thing.

... That about sums it up.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Bigger chairs with a solid support structure, maybe?

 

[Kahunaburger]

There are better ways of articulating accessibility. Making a game more "player-friendly" and "intuitive" is reasonable enough, equivalent to cutting out the gristle to make the meat altogether more appetising.

Yeah, agree with this. I'm kind of on a roguelike kick now basically because Dungeons of Dredmor let me use WASD to walk around instead of W:wipe/wield/wear, A:use item/adjust inventory/remove multiple items, S:search/sit down/save, D:drop single/drop multi/dip/kick.

So I wound up playing things like Dredmor, Brogue, TOME 4, and Shiren that (to various extents) retain things from the roguelike genre like procedural content, interesting interactions, harsh-but-fair (most of the time) gameplay, permadeath, strategic depth, and oh-shit moments while being considerably more accessible than is traditional. If I end up adding a traditional roguelike or two to this list, it will be because the accessible-but-deep ones roped me in.

That said, I don't think many devs are as good at balancing accessibility with depth as someone like Pender or DarkGod is.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

Different sense from what the OP intended with that statement, but something that I've heard in relation to Battlefield 3 and other also-on-PC games.

Skyrim, for example. Why in the ever-loving fuck can't I sort my items like I could in Oblivion? PC or Console, it's complete bullshit.

 

[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?