I know that here on the forum there's a tendency for us to be deeply into the hard content sid eof things - dialogue, mystery, plot etc. However, it occurred to me that maybe it would be a wise move for Obs to go for a bit of a console-gasm frenzy of shiny at the expensee of some content. My point being simply that long-term benefits could come from attracting younger more callow gamers. This is, after all a major 'pop' license, and a great opportunity to play that card.

That's all fair and right, but what does that even mean? I know people like to pretend there's a major difference between console gamers and PC gamers, but I don't see it. I only see a difference between games a decade ago and games now.

I only play console games at my friend's, so I'm no expert, but I'd have thought it was obvious that there'd be a difference in the same way as there is in the movies.

There's controller based differences and hardware limitations, but to say content or thematic differences are obvious is a bit much. That one is based on shiny (implying shallow) as opposed to the other is to just be ignorantly elitist. It's a funny joke to throw around sometimes, but it's also just not bothering to explore why things change other than to point at another group that you feel is different from yours, call them stupid, and blame it all on them.

 

I'm astounded how fans of a platform with such a dominant SHOOTAN GAME legacy alongside Counter-Strike and Battle.net players an claim another platform draws people who like shiny objects.

Edited November 19, 200718 yr by Tale

There's controller based differences and hardware limitations, but to say content or thematic differences are obvious is a bit much. That one is based on shiny (implying shallow) as opposed to the other is to just be ignorantly elitist. It's a funny joke to throw around sometimes, but it's also just not bothering to explore why things change other than to point at another group that you feel is different from yours, call them stupid, and blame it all on them.

 

I'm astounded how fans of a platform with such a dominant SHOOTAN GAME legacy alongside Counter-Strike and Battle.net players an claim another platform draws people who like shiny objects.

 

Woah, easy there old hoss! When I look at PC gamers I see guys in their twenties and thirties who own PCs because they are used to them from being a student or working. When I see console gamers I see the sons of friends in their 12-18 bracket. It's just my personal perspective, with all that implies, but the films each group goes to see are different. I don't see why it should be odd to suggest the games they buy are different too.

 

Why do 12-18 yo get consoles? Probably because they get bought them. It's a lot easier at Christmas to buy a console and some games for your kids than buy them a PC. But that's not my point. Or at least it wasn't supposed to be.

 

My point was about style. I'm saying that maybe for Obsidian to flourish it needs to hoik in a fresh crop of younger gamers, and gamers who are not core Obsidian types. The Aliens franchise seems like a good vehicle for doing that.

 

EDIT FOR EMPHASIS:

 

That's YOUNGER, more callow players, not necessarily console players.

When you say "a console-gasm frenzy of shiny" to refer to what attracts them, it's hard for me to believe you're actually making that differentiation.

 

 

Further, are you suggesting that Obsidian target youths in a game that will likely receive industry ratings for adults? I'm only speculating on what it will receive, but I consider it likely.

 

And again, I ask you "what does that even mean?"

Edited November 19, 200718 yr by Tale

Wals, usually I like what you have to say; but I'm twenty, play a lot of console games, and you can kindly shut up now for suggesting that this makes me inferior to the old people who clutch at their keyboards with talon-like, brittle old fingers.

 

Which is funny because I own a lot more games for PC than I do for consoles.

*Walsingham laughes a dry papery laugh and scratches at a liver spot*

 

I am getting a bit of a broadside here. Nonetheless i'll stick to my guns.

 

1. I DO say that there is a difference between the mass market and the elitist content market. You can't pretend there aren't plenty of *cough cough EA* games which are bereft of storyline, characters, historical accuracy and the word 'bereft'.

 

2. True older gamers review games, but viz the above they are more than capable of reviewing for the market over personal taste.

 

3. Younger gamers are more willing to accept contentless games than older gamers.

 

Bring it on!

3. Younger gamers are more willing to accept contentless games than older gamers.

 

I defy you to produce objective evidence for this claim.

 

Anecdotally, my old father accepts and enjoys a much more bland and generic set of movies than I do. Therefore, older movie-goers must be more willing to accept inferior movies (hyperbole).

 

Bioshock has, arguably, a stronger atmosphere and plot than the vast majority of games and movies and is one of the top games of the year (on console too!) at least in terms of ratings and most likely in terms of sales. While I prefer MotB to Bioshock, the latter is still superior to the vast majority of PC-only releases in terms of content.

 

I suppose it depends on your definition of younger gamer as well. Are you talking about 14 year olds? 18 year olds? 22 year olds? Youth is in the eye of the beholder and makes a poor predictive factor being a malleable term by definition. Younger than who?

 

Again, anecdotally, isn't the Wii the king of fluffy games? And is it not the most popular console among older, more casual console gamers?

 

Furthermore, what is the definition of content-less? Are we talking story content here? Or gameplay content? Artistic content? No game is content-less. Some games may have content not to your tastes, but matters of taste make for poor general principles.

 

"Saying younger gamers are more willing to accept contentless games than older gamers" is a statement of no more use than saying "Old gamers are less willing to accept innovation and imaginative new solutions in games than younger games"

 

While both statements might be true in a single case, they are not useful statements in the general case being unfounded, impossible to prove, victimized by several logical flaws and of almost no predictive value for the purposes of making decisions.

To refer to my earlier analogy, my rigging is afire.

I do think that Obsidian might be wise to vary its output somewhat. Mask of the Betrayer was all the traditional RPG gamer could hope for - as they say, even RPGCodex liked it. So it might be an idea to do something different with Alien that focuses more on those attributes that traditionally appeal to console-gamers - combat, stealth and so on - rather than complex dialogue. I've seen some reviews of Mass Effect that criticise it for having too much dialogue, something I cannot imagine in a game, but if that's what the customer wants... I don't think Obsidian should abandon story-telling - they have to play to their strengths, after all, but I don't want them to become like those game developers who just make the same game again and again.

I do think that Obsidian might be wise to vary its output somewhat. Mask of the Betrayer was all the traditional RPG gamer could hope for - as they say, even RPGCodex liked it. So it might be an idea to do something different with Alien that focuses more on those attributes that traditionally appeal to console-gamers - combat, stealth and so on - rather than complex dialogue. I've seen some reviews of Mass Effect that criticise it for having too much dialogue, something I cannot imagine in a game, but if that's what the customer wants... I don't think Obsidian should abandon story-telling - they have to play to their strengths, after all, but I don't want them to become like those game developers who just make the same game again and again.

I think this depends on the presentation. To my eyes, this is just another area where slow-paced traditional RPG play and fast-paced game-play should reconcile. Although the interactive dialog accompanied with cut-scenes don't seem to be popular to non-stop action gamers, many games managed to tell stories without this format. For example, Half Lifes are known for its story-telling as well as its puzzle like game-play, which employs physics engine and graphics. Some games such as Shock series and the Elder Scrolls use in-world writings to fill the players with details, which are optional to keep gamers who like non-stop actions happy. Thinking of Aliens setting, I think Obsidian team could do something similar to Shock series and combine it with survivor NPC dialog.

 

Concerning PC-NPC interactive dialog specifically, even in Mask of the Betrayer, when I let the PC talk to NPCs, I see dialog options which I have already chosen. At times, I fell in dialog loop continuum just like searching for documents/files lost somewhere in folders. Bioware did some diet in this area with Mass Effect but, at least, judging from the reviews I read, I think they couldn't totally change their way of thinking.

 

However, I think this can be shaped up, too. For example, Deus Ex is hardly complained of its dialog. This is probably because the earlier dialog choices shape Denton's character, which reflects on the later dialog choices. This keeps the number of the dialog option not overwhelming while the players don't need to see old and/or "out-of character" dialog since earlier actions and/or conversations form later conversation choices. I think players want to see "their" character dealing with in-world NPC reactions rather than seeing stat-based pendulum working. If I paraphrase the scheme into stat-based interactions, a diplomat character should be able to use information and trust that his/her PC gained from the NPCs through their earlier choices. This should be done just like in our daily experiences even when there are meta stat working in background. Influence system may work but players probably like to see it directly in the expressions of NPCs rather than watching the stats. Even if characters good at communication may find something which other characters may not from secretive and/or reserved NPCs, it should be reflected in later conversations rather than presented as stats.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to see conversations are naturally integrated to the main story as much as possible since running around only to talk to NPCs is not so exciting. Maybe, some episodes to make the world/ character believable would be nice, though.

 

At the end of the day, the solutions may vary but the point is same.: Let the players feel they are directly interacting to the world/the environment rather than managing stats.

 

P.S. According to Chris Avellone's last blog entry, he is gong to write about story-telling in game-mechanics, so, hopefully, we can glance at what Obsidian designers are thinking for their up-coming game(s).