1. Yes, user involvement can make a great game, as those who would buy the game are inputing the things they like. As long as the developer can properly make the game that the users want, this can be a great advantage.
2. Wizards was not talking about their D&D; video games. They were talking about the upcoming 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, a tabletop roleplaying game. While the question is still valid, the article has nothing to do with it. Had you asked if user involvement in games (not video games) is a good idea, then it would have worked a lot better.
In other words, please do more research and be a little more general when posing questions like this.
Will User Involvement Produce Better Video Games?
SodaHead Gaming
2012/01/10 00:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
288 votes
|
|
84% | |||
|
55 votes
|
|
16% | |||
Popular video game franchises like "Modern Warfare" and "The Elder Scrolls" sell millions of copies and win all the awards, but sometimes innovation takes the backstreets. Dungeons & Dragons producers Wizards of the Coast is trying to develop the popular role-playing franchise in a way that makes it more accessible to both newcomers and the nostalgic old school. They're trying to make the game more adaptable to players with different playing styles and rule preferences by involving the community in the process of writing the next edition.
Wizards released an announcement on Monday that read, "We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D & D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D & D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D & D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D & D, but one that can easily become your D & D, the game that you want to run and play." Do you think user involvement in video games like "Dungeons & Dragons" is a good idea?
Wizards released an announcement on Monday that read, "We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D & D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D & D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D & D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D & D, but one that can easily become your D & D, the game that you want to run and play." Do you think user involvement in video games like "Dungeons & Dragons" is a good idea?
Instead we can make the class have certain aspects in the game that no other classes have. For example. If you are a Rogue, you can be ninja like. You can climb walls, got to place not many people can get to. Like Prince of Persia or Assassins Creed. You are stealthy and agile. You jump higher because you have less armor. Therefor they are easy to kill but hard to hit. Warriors are strong hard hitters, they can smash through things, wear heavy armor. Easy to hit, but hard to kill. They may have a tougher time on mobility but can put out serious damage, as well as take it. They can fight almost like Devil May Cry. Hunters can be almost like Skyrim style of aiming. It seems more fps-ish. And so on. Different perks for different class. All have abilities that can help a group.
Think of it like this... You are in a group and you com...
Instead we can make the class have certain aspects in the game that no other classes have. For example. If you are a Rogue, you can be ninja like. You can climb walls, got to place not many people can get to. Like Prince of Persia or Assassins Creed. You are stealthy and agile. You jump higher because you have less armor. Therefor they are easy to kill but hard to hit. Warriors are strong hard hitters, they can smash through things, wear heavy armor. Easy to hit, but hard to kill. They may have a tougher time on mobility but can put out serious damage, as well as take it. They can fight almost like Devil May Cry. Hunters can be almost like Skyrim style of aiming. It seems more fps-ish. And so on. Different perks for different class. All have abilities that can help a group.
Think of it like this... You are in a group and you come across this gate you need to get through. You can use your Rogue to climb over the gate and open it. You can use your warrior to smash through it. Mage to open it with magic. Hunter can shoot an explosive arrow. Priest can levitate over it. Depending on how you open it depends on what might happen in the next area.
I believe it is possible to make a game where the player gets better. Look at games like Devil May Cry. Yeah you can be decent and be able to beat the game. BUT! When you start getting into huge combos and charging your sword at the right time, then morphing, to get HUGE STYLE points, you gain stuff a lot quicker, and combos look prettier and you will feel like the ultimate badass.
Team Fortress has taken this idea, but I want to expand on it.
I can't wait for Skyrim Mod tools.
What kinda tools will be at there disposal
Designing a game is like a creative act producing an art picture or a film.
Its nonsense to ask the buyers for advice how a painter should paint the pictures. He will not be able to make HIS pictures.
If the customer is very good he may be able to give someone instructions do "manufacture" what he wants, but then is the way the game and not the product.
And where is then the challenge and trial to master the game, when you already know what is happening?
Ubisoft however does not allow that. Modding, the community! That keeps the game alive and new. But companies of today won`t hear it because they want their precious software protected.
I think users can help tweak a game that's already good & make it better. But, if they were better than the pro's well, they'd replace the pros, wouldn't they?
Some idea's from players are a good idea, cause change in a good way. Others are wanting to make the game easy mode, removing the challenge. Games like world of Warcraft are going down hill because of that exact reason.
When the players get what they want, then reviews go up. They ask for what they want, and they got what they want. Therefore, the only way for reviews to go is UP, since the game is just how they asked it to be.
The only way to get reviews to skyrocket though with that method is to go above and beyond what the players wanted. And if players want totally differing styles, then you either make two games, or make an insanely complex game that works both ways.
However, it's hard to say that Wizards of the Coast is trying to make the game more accessible and wants to involve the community since they completely changed the game once they bought it from TSR. They alienated much of the existing player base of the game in favor of making it "more accessible." The took the challenge and thinking that was intrinsic to game play and turned everything into numbers and die rolls. Role play was secondary to getting as many new players to play the game, regardless of how many old players they lost. And now that they're phasing out miniatures in favor of tokens, I don't know if they're really listening to the wants and needs of the player base.
Wizards of the Coast prefers to add in what sounds cool, rather than what makes sense. If players are so focused on their number-centric game, they'll roll a Knowledge Check to see if they solved a riddle, rather than actually solving the riddle. They add templates and races and creatures in swarms. If a player can figure out a way to get around a trap or an encounter or what have you that wasn't the way it was designed, they get told that it doesn't work because that's the way it was written. Robot Chicken had a great sket...&&
However, it's hard to say that Wizards of the Coast is trying to make the game more accessible and wants to involve the community since they completely changed the game once they bought it from TSR. They alienated much of the existing player base of the game in favor of making it "more accessible." The took the challenge and thinking that was intrinsic to game play and turned everything into numbers and die rolls. Role play was secondary to getting as many new players to play the game, regardless of how many old players they lost. And now that they're phasing out miniatures in favor of tokens, I don't know if they're really listening to the wants and needs of the player base.
Wizards of the Coast prefers to add in what sounds cool, rather than what makes sense. If players are so focused on their number-centric game, they'll roll a Knowledge Check to see if they solved a riddle, rather than actually solving the riddle. They add templates and races and creatures in swarms. If a player can figure out a way to get around a trap or an encounter or what have you that wasn't the way it was designed, they get told that it doesn't work because that's the way it was written. Robot Chicken had a great sketch illustrating this, where someone kills a werewolf by shooting them with a mini gun until they are nothing but pieces and sets the pieces on fire (among other things), and then it cuts to some kids playing D&D; and the DM says that the werewolf's still not dead, because it says you have to kill it with a silver bullet. It's things like that that are ruining the game of D&D;.
http://mmohuts.com/review/dun...