Dragon Age

[Slowtrain]

I've always thought of low fantasy as dealing more with "ordinary" people; mercenaries, thieves, bandits, going about small dark plots in worlds that are generaly low on both magic and grandeur and do not have a clear or imperative sense of moral right and wrong

 

Whereas to me High fantasy is more about kings and the wars of huge kingdoms against monstrous evil with very clealy defined good and bad and lots of magic and swords with names.

 

Its a broad and very generalized distinction of course, and some fantasy, like much of what Michael Moor**** wrote, has elements of both.

Edited April 4, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Monte Carlo]

^ Crash, as a massive fan of Moorc0ck and the Eternal Champion, I've noticed for some reason that his work is commonly described as Science Fantasy. ::shrugs:: like it matters.

 

Like people said, the distinction is moot but DA:O looks to me to be pretty vanilla high fantasy. And like others have said also, as long as it's a good game then that's not a big deal.

 

Ulitmately, Bioware went with a lowest common denominator setting for understandable commercial reasons. The minor tweaks to the traditional setting (OMG peasant Elves! No clerics!) are just that: tweaks. OTOH people here absolutely love Planescape, they are the extremely creative and polite distant cousin of the Fallout fan. Planescape didn't realise the commercial success they think it deserved - which is why Bio is so good at making Joe Gamer think he is playing something special and different when it palpably isn't.

 

As for romances - sure, I'll ignore them but that's resources that could have gone into something else. I reserve the right to fight the corner of Stuff I Like. After all, there are hordes of romance fanz on the Bio boards who want nothing else, aren't there?

 

Cheers

MC

[Volourn]

"Ulitmately, Bioware went with a lowest common denominator setting for understandable commercial reasons."

 

Good 'ol fashion elitism here.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yes, unashamedly so. So what?

[Volourn]

You have nothing to be elite about. You simply aren't that special. Only someone who *is* the lowest common denominator would think he was special. Espicially since you will be one of the first to buy, play, and enjoy DA. R00fles!

Edited April 4, 2009 by Volourn

[Monte Carlo]

Yawn.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I lol'd. Just saying.

[Meshugger]

You have nothing to be elite about. You simply aren't that special. Only someone who *is* the lowest common denominator would think he was special. Espicially since you will be one of the first to buy, play, and enjoy DA. R00fles!

 

Depends on what you define as the 'lowest common denominator'. I am currently working in the software industry, where the concept of 'idiot-proof' is commonly used. It derives from making sure that the system/application/solution that is being implemented, cannot halt or have unexpected errors due to erratic and unforseen end-user input. By following this methodology, you can ensure that the quality in terms of stability and usuability is high. These qualities are rated high, based on customer input. Hype, clever marketing and interesting features that are more simpler to understand are also important factors.

 

If the designers and engineers expects that the end-user has the same understanding and insight as people from their field, then they are doomed to failure. As the previous CEO for SUN said iirc: "The best technology sells the best by itself", that almost bancrupted the company.

 

I don't see Bioware to think otherwise.

[Oerwinde]

When playing Dragon Age: Origins, I am going to replace every song in the soundtrack with Manowar's "Black wind, Fire and Steel". It would only do this game justice.

 

- "For Fereldern, chaaarBORN OF BLACK WIND, FIRE AND STEEL"

- "The Blight ends heBLACK WIND, FIRE AND STEEL"

- "Silence you dwarven scum! I should teach youBLACK WIND, FIRE AND STEEL"

- "Mages and their magic should not be trusted! They areBORN OF BLACK WIND, FIRE AND STEEL"

 

*Intimate moment*

 

-"Why do i have....these feelings for you? It's like...i can't stop smiling every time I see you, why is this? When i look into your eyes, i feel comfortness and peace. Why?"

-"ReXona, my Elven princess, i also have to tell you thatI AM AN OUTCAST ON THE PATH OF NO RETURN

PUNISHER AND SWORDSMAN

I WAS BORN TO BURN

 

BLACK WIND ALWAYS FOLLOWS

WHERE MY BLACK HORSE RIDES

 

FIRE IS IN MY SOUL

STEEL IS ON MY SIDE

 

BORN OF BLACK WIND....

 

*SEXSCENE*

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can hardly wait.

 

Thats two kickass old metal bands I've been introduced to in the last week, them and Anvil. Thanks.

[Tigranes]

Of course there is a 'lowest common denominator', and most of us indulge in it to varying degrees. Put aside the silly reactionism about OMG DONT CALL PPL STUPID and a decades-stale sentiment of "If everyone likes it it has to be great", and there's not much reason to rail against the 'elitism', either.

 

Every Bio setting has been lowest-common-denominator. It's just becoming a bit more brazen about it.

[Volourn]

"Every Bio setting has been lowest-common-denominator. It's just becoming a bit more brazen about it."

 

Wrong. There's so much wrong about this statement, it's hilarious.

 

 

"there's not much reason to rail against the 'elitism', either."

 

Actually, there is. Elitism come sinto play when someone thinks their crap don't stink when it obviously does yet will point out others' anyways.

 

 

P.S. If BIO was shooting for the mythical 'lowest common denominator' (which doesn't truly exist); they wouldn't be making video games - espicially RPGs (action or otherwise).

[Tigranes]

Planescape didn't realise the commercial success they think it deserved - which is why Bio is so good at making Joe Gamer think he is playing something special and different when it palpably isn't.

 

I don't have the quote on me, but Orhan Pamuk said it best: we claim we want the exotic, but what we really want is to see what we think is 'universal' in an exotic guise.

[Hell Kitty]

Who exactly is the lowest common denominator? What is it about a game that makes it for the lowest common denominator? Meshugger's definition seems is about being bug-free, which is certainly not the way most people use the term, and probably rules out a hell of a lot of PC games. If a game is bug-free and simple to use, then it's aimed at the LCD whether it's an FPS like Call of Duty or an arthouse game like The Path?

 

The term results in knotted knickers because it's typically used as nothing more than criticism of a product without bothering to go into specifics, because in reality people are just complaining about stuff they don't like. So called "elitism" is when people assume they aren't actually a part of the so called LCD, just that they sometimes lower themselves and indulge in the same sort of thing the LCD does. "I don't actually like Baywatch, I just watch it because it's so bad it's funny." Or perhaps you watch it for the same reason all the others plebs do. It's like there's a sense of shame associated with enjoying something popular, a shame associated with being part of the huge group of people, when in reality people aren't the unique snowflakes they like to think they are.

[Gorth]

I think it depends to some degree on who you ask. I always understood it as a synonym for simplicity, i.e. sacrificing detail for ease of use. Somebody will probably come along and hit me over the head with a dictionary

[Meshugger]

Who exactly is the lowest common denominator? What is it about a game that makes it for the lowest common denominator? Meshugger's definition seems is about being bug-free, which is certainly not the way most people use the term, and probably rules out a hell of a lot of PC games. If a game is bug-free and simple to use, then it's aimed at the LCD whether it's an FPS like Call of Duty or an arthouse game like The Path?

 

The term results in knotted knickers because it's typically used as nothing more than criticism of a product without bothering to go into specifics, because in reality people are just complaining about stuff they don't like. So called "elitism" is when people assume they aren't actually a part of the so called LCD, just that they sometimes lower themselves and indulge in the same sort of thing the LCD does. "I don't actually like Baywatch, I just watch it because it's so bad it's funny." Or perhaps you watch it for the same reason all the others plebs do. It's like there's a sense of shame associated with enjoying something popular, a shame associated with being part of the huge group of people, when in reality people aren't the unique snowflakes they like to think they are.

 

I didn't mean that you can apply my notion of useability and reliability directly to video-games. What i meant was that the software industry wishes to be as broad as possible in order to reach more customers and increase the market share and wealth. This is only natural, anything else is a gamble.

 

What these notions have in common is that they have to take the 'village idiots' point of view, or the lowest common denominator, when doing their design, whatever metric or discipline they might focus on.

 

And oh, the real 'Elitists' are the ones that were in charge of their own fate and changed humanity within their reach. Take Wittgenstein for example, who wished to explain the very nature philosophy as we know it. He considered any form of music that wasn't Brahms to be a sign of decline and the path to idiocracy. He even had a school were he brought up children with mathmatical-spatial gifts, where the rest were physically punished for their stupidity. Now that's Elitism!

Edited April 6, 2009 by Meshugger

[Hell Kitty]

I think it depends to some degree on who you ask.

 

Yeah, and when everyone has their own definition, the term becomes meaningless.

 

I always understood it as a synonym for simplicity, i.e. sacrificing detail for ease of use.

 

I've always assumed it meant to appeal to as many people as possible, and simplicity would be a part of that (being able to play something straight away as opposed to needing to read a 100 page manual before starting), but I don't think simplicity necessarily means sacrifice. For example, an RPG features 50 different skills but for the sequel it's cut down to 10. People will complain that the sequel is dumbed down, simplified for the masses, but what if the 10 skills of the sequel were all important and all had a drastic effect on the course of the game, while the 50 skills of the original were mostly fluff that changed little? In Deus Ex a skill like swimming is worthless compared to a skill like computers, but what Harvey Smith came to realise with the failure of the sequel is that people really like having lots of different choices, even if those choices don't actually change much. So which game is more appealing to the LCD, the seemingly simple sequel with fewer options that change the course of the game, or the apparently complex original with far more options which do little to change the game but are meaningful in how the player sees their character?

 

And oh, the real 'Elitists' are the ones that were in charge of their own fate and changed humanity within their reach.

 

Being an elitist means believing yourself to be part of a superior group, it doesn't doesn't mean you actually do anything important or worthwhile.

 

He considered any game that wasn't [insert whatever games he considers worthwhile] to be a sign of decline and the path to idiocracy.

 

Yep, that pretty much describes so-called elitist gamers, though whiners is really a more appropriate term.

[Meshugger]

I think it depends to some degree on who you ask.

 

Yeah, and when everyone has their own definition, the term becomes meaningless.

 

I always understood it as a synonym for simplicity, i.e. sacrificing detail for ease of use.

 

I've always assumed it meant to appeal to as many people as possible, and simplicity would be a part of that (being able to play something straight away as opposed to needing to read a 100 page manual before starting), but I don't think simplicity necessarily means sacrifice. For example, an RPG features 50 different skills but for the sequel it's cut down to 10. People will complain that the sequel is dumbed down, simplified for the masses, but what if the 10 skills of the sequel were all important and all had a drastic effect on the course of the game, while the 50 skills of the original were mostly fluff that changed little? In Deus Ex a skill like swimming is worthless compared to a skill like computers, but what Harvey Smith came to realise with the failure of the sequel is that people really like having lots of different choices, even if those choices don't actually change much. So which game is more appealing to the LCD, the seemingly simple sequel with fewer options that change the course of the game, or the apparently complex original with far more options which do little to change the game but are meaningful in how the player sees their character?

 

And oh, the real 'Elitists' are the ones that were in charge of their own fate and changed humanity within their reach.

 

Being an elitist means believing yourself to be part of a superior group, it doesn't doesn't mean you actually do anything important or worthwhile.

 

He considered any game that wasn't [insert whatever games he considers worthwhile] to be a sign of decline and the path to idiocracy.

 

Yep, that pretty much describes so-called elitist gamers, though whiners is really a more appropriate term.

 

In a world of videogames, Deus Ex fans are an elite group

Edited April 6, 2009 by Meshugger

[Kaftan Barlast]

A delude group, more like. They continuously praise DE as the best game ever, even though it has crippled gameplay and ludicrous story*. Its an average game.

 

 

 

 

*ok, lets take all the major conspiracy theory badguys and lump them in together with the old evil AI schtick! That's like totally original!!

[H]

Come on, Deus Ex never took itself seriously. For example, JC was constantly mocked by other characters for his longcoat and sunglasses.

[Meshugger]

Feh! Such imbeciles, that's just what they want you to think.

[Tigranes]

Deus Ex didn't appear to take itself seriously but in fact seriously committed itself to an ironic representation of what it portrayed very seriously without being too serious.

[Slowtrain]

Deus Ex didn't appear to take itself seriously but in fact seriously committed itself to an ironic representation of what it portrayed very seriously without being too serious.

 

 

I was going to say that, but then my head exploded before I could get it all out. So I didn't.

[Kaftan Barlast]

So am I the only one who thinks DA gameplay looks way too much like NWN? Youd think the would have come up with something a bit better than the old "stand around like a wanker for 6 seconds then play attack animation. repeat"

[Jaesun]

I really like the new AI for Dragon Age. Like this http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/30...battle-footage/

 

The New ignore the Mage with no armor and run to the Melee fighters AI is awesome.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not going to defend my taste in anything, because it's subjective.

 

But.

 

Lowest common denominator isn't necessarily pejorative, is it? A Big Mac is arguably lowest common denominator food. Now and then I like one. Conversely, budget notwithstanding, I also like the occasional trip to a place with a Michelin star. I wouldn't like to eat Big Macs all the time, nor Michelin star food either.

 

Capiche?

 

Bio is unasahmedly going down the "Would-you-like-fries-with-your-CRPG" route. They're trying to dress it up, as others suggested, with some tweaks to approximate originality. This is like our Big Mac being served with a slice of fois gras: it's still a Big Mac but with a posh bit that isn't really simpatico. There's nothing wrong with this (hey, Greg & Ray have my respect for creating such a successful business, they really do). So, call me an elitist snob in petty ad hominem insults if you wish, but nowadays I'm hankering after a game a bit more Michelin star than BK drive-thru.

 

That's all I was saying.

 

Cheers

MC