152 réponses à ce sujet

[Riona45]

Anathemic wrote...


I dunno 'bout you but I took "That's no basis for declaring the entire story to be dull and definitely worse than DA:O's story." as "That's no basis that you can form this opinion!" forgive me if I interperted it differently

Blah blah blah I dunno 'bout you but I'm getting tired of this back and forth with you on niggling little nothings like this.

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Same thing happened here, before we were just fighting against VO and some extent dialogue wheel, now that it is confirmed we are now fighting against it still

2) BioWare implements wheel to make it easier for people to understand? i had a hard time with the wheel..

3) Alright well this point is ended

1) I think point 1 should end here too because it's an analogy that went off on some weird tangent that really no longer matters, it's pretty much semantics at this point.

2) They didn't implement the wheel to make it easier they implemented changes to the wheel to make understanding it easier. They implemented the wheel because it makes dialogue more interesting and fast point

3) I agree.

[Suron]

druid126 wrote...

Suron wrote...

lol...trolling..I love how you idiots immediately claim someone is trolling when you don't agree with their post.

and no I didn't read the entire thread..and I don't care what was argued...I saw your post..and how stupid it was..so I replied..anything said before I made my post is irrelevant.

so why don't you just give up? or do you like failing?

Actually, any post made to insult a person and bate them in to anger or aggression *is* trolling. Hence, even if you didn't mean to, you're trolling right now. You're attempting to arouse my anger. Especially using harsher words like "stupid" or "failing".

By the way, anything said before you made your post is not irrelavent. Raising old points in a discussion thread is not productive and is another tactic employed by trolls. If you don't like being labelled a troll then do not act like one. I apologise if my post offended you in some way and I am sincerely trying to avoid angering you right now. However, if you expect to be treated with respect then you should respect others in turn.

if you can't understand that I replied to a poor attempt to counter someone elses points when I saw how stupid the post was....and can't understand that I'm not wading through 4 pages of a thread just to post my reply...then I don't see how you can consider facts trolling.

and I don't respect stupid (happy now? that's trolling)

[Anathemic]

LPPrince wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

If you go by that logic "There's millions upon millions of gamers that didn't play the game." then all games suck because third-wirld countries don't have access to these games.

Anyways more money is a good thing, yay, but if money is the only driving force, well there's a comapny called Blizzard entetainment...

But your "blind hate" comments don't help when reasonable posters are posting reasonable points and you call "blind hate" enticing them to make equally offending responses, thus debate turns into argument

Bold- That doesn't even make sense. I'm referring to millions of gamers, not millions of non-gamers. Try to make sense.

Italics- Que?

Underline- And what good points are these? You mean the mature points that mature posters have brought up? You mean the points that haven't been riddled with, "THIS GAME SUKS", "END OF ALL THINGS BIOWARE", "I WON'T PCK UP THIS GAME", and "RPG IS DEAD! TROLLOLOLOL"? I've seen those, and I understand where they're coming from.

They are CONCERNED. Being concerned is one thing. But hating and dismissing the game 2 days after announcement IS blind hate.

They aren't hating. They are looking at what we know, considering what we don't know, and formulating their worries in a respectful manner. They don't think the game will tank. They are waiting for more information before discarding it as trash.

Others, on the other hand, are claiming its doom for us all. THOSE are the ones I say are blind hating, because that's exactly what they're doing.

1) If you are extending it to a large scale saying that millions of players didn't buy the game when in fact 3 million players bought the game on initial first week release and logically more after that, that's saying that those millions of palyers that didnt buy it outweigh the ones who did, thus why i brought it into world-scale.

2) Blizzard entertainment, never head of them? Look over at the WoW forums and see how the veteran players are being overlooked over the casual ones

3) I recall recieving the "blind hate" comment from you even though each one of my posts are the same mature manner, some heated but they still have good points and i never said that "it's the end of the world" or something to that effect.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3086197

This thread is what I base all my points arguing against DA2 from and all points in there on here and many other threads are very simaler and hardly warrant a "Blind hate" retort

[druid126]

Suron wrote...

if you can't understand that I replied to a poor attempt to counter someone elses points when I saw how stupid the post was....and can't understand that I'm not wading through 4 pages of a thread just to post my reply...then I don't see how you can consider facts trolling.

and I don't respect stupid (happy now? that's trolling)

Actually I understand that you replied to a post you disagreed with, without any surrounding fact, in an attempt to troll. You aren't just trolling *now* you were trolling since the beginning. If you don't want to understand what the actual thread is about and you don't want to bother to read what the point of the original post is then you can hardly say you spoke "facts".

You're a troll and I don't respect trolls. Go ahead and post any number of insults you wish. However, I'm not going to respond to any more of your troll posts. Say something constructive, say something relevant, and stop living in the past or I don't care much to debate anything with you. 

[Riona45]

LPPrince wrote...
People are treating it like its the first time a character has been pre-established.

True.  DA:O was unusual in that it let you pick from six fairly well-detailed backgrounds.  It's understandable how changing that is causing anger in some people.  However I don't think the argument that having only one origin makes it impossible to roleplay is a cogent one.

[Suron]

druid126 wrote...

Suron wrote...

if you can't understand that I replied to a poor attempt to counter someone elses points when I saw how stupid the post was....and can't understand that I'm not wading through 4 pages of a thread just to post my reply...then I don't see how you can consider facts trolling.

and I don't respect stupid (happy now? that's trolling)

Actually I understand that you replied to a post you disagreed with, without any surrounding fact, in an attempt to troll. You aren't just trolling *now* you were trolling since the beginning. If you don't want to understand what the actual thread is about and you don't want to bother to read what the point of the original post is then you can hardly say you spoke "facts".

You're a troll and I don't respect trolls. Go ahead and post any number of insults you wish. However, I'm not going to respond to any more of your troll posts. Say something constructive, say something relevant, and stop living in the past or I don't care much to debate anything with you. 

typical..

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

1) I think point 1 should end here too because it's an analogy that went off on some weird tangent that really no longer matters, it's pretty much semantics at this point.

2) They didn't implement the wheel to make it easier they implemented changes to the wheel to make understanding it easier. They implemented the wheel because it makes dialogue more interesting and fast point

3) I agree.

Alright to point 2 then

Again this is your view, my view and many others view says that this wheel is what detracts us and limits immersion. But my personal opinion is why you already have this feature in ME series and the upcoming SW:TOR, why exclude the fanbase that likes no-VO and no-dialogue wheel by making all current franchises go streamlined with the popular features?

It seems DA:O was a one time thing, and that's it...

[LPPrince]

Anathemic wrote...

1) If you are extending it to a large scale saying that millions of players didn't buy the game when in fact 3 million players bought the game on initial first week release and logically more after that, that's saying that those millions of palyers that didnt buy it outweigh the ones who did, thus why i brought it into world-scale.

2) Blizzard entertainment, never head of them? Look over at the WoW forums and see how the veteran players are being overlooked over the casual ones

3) I recall recieving the "blind hate" comment from you even though each one of my posts are the same mature manner, some heated but they still have good points and i never said that "it's the end of the world" or something to that effect.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3086197

This thread is what I base all my points arguing against DA2 from and all points in there on here and many other threads are very simaler and hardly warrant a "Blind hate" retort

1. There's WAY more than 3 million video game players that like RPG's.

2. I know who they are, but I don't see where you're going with it, unless you're saying Blizzard has tons of money and isn't catering to their fans/consumers. In that case, you brought up them overlooking veteran players for casual ones. That lends itself to the different demographic argument I brought up earlier. Thanks for the help.

3. I never even saw that thread. If I did, I wouldn't call it blind hating. That's the type of response I was referring to earlier as mature.

But you HAVE dismissed the game as being worse than the first, and being terrible, which is hating.

[LPPrince]

Riona45 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
People are treating it like its the first time a character has been pre-established.

True.  DA:O was unusual in that it let you pick from six fairly well-detailed backgrounds.  It's understandable how changing that is causing anger in some people.  However I don't think the argument that having only one origin makes it impossible to roleplay is a cogent one.

People will find any reason to bash change.

[Anathemic]

LPPrince wrote...

1. There's WAY more than 3 million video game players that like RPG's.

2. I know who they are, but I don't see where you're going with it, unless you're saying Blizzard has tons of money and isn't catering to their fans/consumers. In that case, you brought up them overlooking veteran players for casual ones. That lends itself to the different demographic argument I brought up earlier. Thanks for the help.

3. I never even saw that thread. If I did, I wouldn't call it blind hating. That's the type of response I was referring to earlier as mature.

But you HAVE dismissed the game as being worse than the first, and being terrible, which is hating.

1) Of course, but why go against DA:O's confirmed success by saying that millions of others don't play it/never bought it?

2) Really? So the ones that support the current features of DA2 (full VO, dialogue wheel, etc.) are being surpressed? How come the ones arguing against are being called the 'vocal minority'? Minority is a surpressing term and so is vocal.

3) Sure I said DA2 worse than DA:O but I have never dismissed it as a 'fail' game if I had I wouldn't be on here and wouldn't be arguing my points in hope that something will be changed

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

Alright to point 2 then

Again this is your view, my view and many others view says that this wheel is what detracts us and limits immersion. But my personal opinion is why you already have this feature in ME series and the upcoming SW:TOR, why exclude the fanbase that likes no-VO and no-dialogue wheel by making all current franchises go streamlined with the popular features?

It seems DA:O was a one time thing, and that's it...

2) You're right. It all comes down to personal opinion. And everyone knows you can't change personal opinion. But DA:O was not the first game to implement that dialogue system. Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Elderscrolls, and loads of others had the same dialogue system as DA:O. However, times change. There was a time when such a dialogue system was only available in table top RPGs. 

BioWare seems to be implementing this wheel system over several games because they believe it's the way of the future. Fans decry it because they think it kills Role Play. Just like people thought computers would put everyone out of their jobs and instead they enhance them. For now it might appear like your choices are limited. As technology gets better you'll find your immersion will increase. You have to start somewhere, right? That's the whole point. They "started somewhere" in Mass Effect and now they're making it better, and adjusting it greatly, and trying to bring it forward in to other games where they believe it will be just as successful.

DA:O was not a one time thing. Maybe their conversation system will be one of the last times you see it in computer RPGs. Maybe it's the last time you'll see it for any BioWare game. But it's not the end of the world and not the end of Role Playing. Eventually you'll find, at least I hope you will, that it does what they're intending it to do. That it enhances RPGs and doesn't destroy them.

This is going to have to be my last post until I get some rest. I've developed a rather harsh headache. I hope to continue this posting tomorrow.

[SkittlesKat96]

Why did they try to give Half Life a storyline? omfg they should just stick to what Doom did and have no storyline that way there is more action, I hate change.

[LPPrince]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Of course, but why go against DA:O's confirmed success by saying that millions of others don't play it/never bought it?

2) Really? So the ones that support the current features of DA2 (full VO, dialogue wheel, etc.) are being surpressed? How come the ones arguing against are being called the 'vocal minority'? Minority is a surpressing term and so is vocal.

3) Sure I said DA2 worse than DA:O but I have never dismissed it as a 'fail' game if I had I wouldn't be on here and wouldn't be arguing my points in hope that something will be changed

1. They aren't. They want to bring those millions into the fold. The 3 million people aren't going to NOT buy DA2 just because of a few changes. Otherwise, they weren't a fanbase worth having.

2. Who called them the vocal minority? Sounds to me like half the people here are arguing against the change, and that's only a minority if you compare it to the millions who've played the game and AREN'T on the forums.

3. You do realize though that the dialogue wheel and VO's are such drastic changes that they can't simply be omitted? The DW because its the easiest way to make the dialogue work for VO's, and VO's pretty much speak for themselves, no pun intended.

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

2) You're right. It all comes down to personal opinion. And everyone knows you can't change personal opinion. But DA:O was not the first game to implement that dialogue system. Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Elderscrolls, and loads of others had the same dialogue system as DA:O. However, times change. There was a time when such a dialogue system was only available in table top RPGs. 

BioWare seems to be implementing this wheel system over several games because they believe it's the way of the future. Fans decry it because they think it kills Role Play. Just like people thought computers would put everyone out of their jobs and instead they enhance them. For now it might appear like your choices are limited. As technology gets better you'll find your immersion will increase. You have to start somewhere, right? That's the whole point. They "started somewhere" in Mass Effect and now they're making it better, and adjusting it greatly, and trying to bring it forward in to other games where they believe it will be just as successful.

DA:O was not a one time thing. Maybe their conversation system will be one of the last times you see it in computer RPGs. Maybe it's the last time you'll see it for any BioWare game. But it's not the end of the world and not the end of Role Playing. Eventually you'll find, at least I hope you will, that it does what they're intending it to do. That it enhances RPGs and doesn't destroy them.

This is going to have to be my last post until I get some rest. I've developed a rather harsh headache. I hope to continue this posting tomorrow.

Yes they started somewhere in Mass Effect, some liked it, some didn't, it's still up in the air and it is unfair to call comeone a 'vocal minority' jsut because they express their opinions against it. But I say again, you already had the thing going for Mass Effect, DA:O was like a safe haven for us who liked the class/traditional/old school style of no VO, no dialogue wheel, etc. for CRPGs why can't you leave DA as it is and make a standard sequel with just some tweaks and a continued plotline?

Again change is not always good, I can probally can fine some good examples, but I'm too tired to try right now

Yes, hope this is continued tomorrow

[Riona45]

Anathemic wrote...
How come the ones arguing against are being called the 'vocal minority'? Minority is a surpressing term and so is vocal.

Everyone here is a vocal minority, because the vast majority of people who played DA:O don't post on this messageboard.

[LPPrince]

Riona45 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
How come the ones arguing against are being called the 'vocal minority'? Minority is a surpressing term and so is vocal.

Everyone here is a vocal minority, because the vast majority of people who played DA:O don't post on this messageboard.

And that's something most people here would never admit.

[Riona45]

LPPrince wrote...
3. You do realize though that the dialogue wheel and VO's are such drastic changes that they can't simply be omitted?

Yup--Dave Gaider essentially confirmed this in a recent post.  The dialogue wheel is what they're using and it's here to stay (and, the writers actually like using it!).

Modifié par Riona45, 11 juillet 2010 - 07:23 .

[Anathemic]

LPPrince wrote...

1. They aren't. They want to bring those millions into the fold. The 3 million people aren't going to NOT buy DA2 just because of a few changes. Otherwise, they weren't a fanbase worth having.

2. Who called them the vocal minority? Sounds to me like half the people here are arguing against the change, and that's only a minority if you compare it to the millions who've played the game and AREN'T on the forums.

3. You do realize though that the dialogue wheel and VO's are such drastic changes that they can't simply be omitted? The DW because its the easiest way to make the dialogue work for VO's, and VO's pretty much speak for themselves, no pun intended.

1)That's a rather impertinent accusation, you are willingly to declare the DA:O fanbase as worthless over a few who threaten not to buy the game because they don't like it? It seems that the only fanbase worth having is the fanbase that gives money.

Personally I am a fan of Warcraft, I loved Warcraft 1-3 but WoW i hated, but Blizzard kept me happy because of free online Battle.net feature and they imrpoving it with Starcraft 2 plus Diablo 3, but just declaring the Battle.net fanbase not worth having, that would entice alot of hate.

2) Mostly people who argue against us who are arguing against the current features, we are 'vocal' because we express our opinions and we are a 'minority' because we don't agree, and people call us senseless.

3) There's a hope that they can, I for one will keep arguing my points as will many others because htese are the forums.

And now me goes to sleep since its past 12 AM here

[LPPrince]

Anathemic wrote...

1)That's a rather impertinent accusation, you are willingly to declare the DA:O fanbase as worthless over a few who threaten not to buy the game because they don't like it? It seems that the only fanbase worth having is the fanbase that gives money.

Personally I am a fan of Warcraft, I loved Warcraft 1-3 but WoW i hated, but Blizzard kept me happy because of free online Battle.net feature and they imrpoving it with Starcraft 2 plus Diablo 3, but just declaring the Battle.net fanbase not worth having, that would entice alot of hate.

2) Mostly people who argue against us who are arguing against the current features, we are 'vocal' because we express our opinions and we are a 'minority' because we don't agree, and people call us senseless.

3) There's a hope that they can, I for one will keep arguing my points as will many others because htese are the forums.

And now me goes to sleep since its past 12 AM here

1. Incorrect. I'm saying if all 3 million quit, then the fanbase wasn't worth having.

2. Oh trust me, you are a vocal minority. Vocal? Yes. Minority? Yes. Minority in that everyone here is part of a minority.

3. Except you're arguing against the VO's and Dialogue Wheel, both of which WILL NOT CHANGE.

So you're wasting your time arguing to no avail.

But alas, lets continue this tomorrow. I'm getting tired too. Or, we can just not continue, that works! lol

[LPPrince]

Riona45 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
3. You do realize though that the dialogue wheel and VO's are such drastic changes that they can't simply be omitted?

Yup--Dave Gaider essentially confirmed this in a recent post.  The dialogue wheel is what they're using and it's here to stay (and, the writers actually like using it!).

Same thing occurred with the revamped health system in ME2. They liked using it, and they swore they wouldn't change it. They didn't, and held true to their word.

The same will happen here.

[Mancamulas]

Hello all, i think that people is over reacting about this.

The game was announced a few days ago, very little to know about it yet and, i`m sure of it , the game is still a long way to see the light.



For now, i`m enjoying the game as it is now,love it more every time i play it.



Let DAO2 come, then we will see if it`s for the best or not.



Have a good night you all, here it`s day already.

[Aquamantor]

 Alright, I'll admit I haven't read every comment on this board, but I'll just add my two cents:

Dragon Age is going Mass Effect. That's what's happening, that's what we can all agree on, right?
Well then, let's compare the virtues of the last Dragon Age to Mass Effect, and let's think carefully here. Let's start from the perspective of roleplaying: I remember in Dragon Age when I was given five lines of dialogue to choose from that all said completely different things. I was amazed. Even in Bioware's earlier games, they had never done this. But why particularly was I amazed? Because in Mass Effect, they had moved further away from this flexibility.

Let's not BS ourselves: Shepard is Shepard. I don't care what you say, YOU are not Shepard. After all, I realized very quickly into Mass Effect that I was playing a character, and my only real choice was between two basic personalities for that character, or trying to combine those personalities to make something (sort of, but not really) different. IE: I could have MY Shepard make Renegade choices when dealing with superiors (He doesn't like being bossed around!) but Paragon choices concerning alien species (He's not a racist!). This does not, and will not change the fact, however, that every conversation has three basic dialogue choices, "paragon" "renegade" and "neutral". AND, in fact, they even place these alignment choices on the same place for your convenience! So that a player, if he wants to play "Renegade" Shepard, just has to press down-left with the control stick every time he is allowed to speak, and whopee! He has his character. Correction. He is watching the character he chose for the story interacting with the other characters. And, oh, BTW: you'd better stick to one alignment too. There are inconsistencies in what Shepard says if he's constantly swapping from Paragon to Renegade, and in ME2 those Paragon and Renegade scores are also your persuasion skills, and it's useless to be good at both of them. So unless you want a very confused and uncharismatic hero, you'd better pick one of the two characters Bioware has set up for you.

As bluntly as I can possibly put it: Actual roleplaying in Mass Effect is awful. It's borderline nonexistent. In the end, you feel far more connected to Shepard than the average video game character. But YOU are not HIM. HE is NOT YOUR character.

But do I blame Bioware for this choice? Actually...no. In reality. They did the best they could. They made a choice. This choice was to make the presentation of Mass Effect cinematic and tight, with a more structured storyline. Therefore, they wanted the character to have a name, they wanted the character to have a definite place, they wanted the character to have a voice. And that voice. That voice is where all the restriction lies. Don't you know, after all, that multiple dialogue choices in Mass Effect will actually lead to the same line? We all see the number of lines there already are, the ungodly amount of time they probably had to spend in a recording studio for not one, but TWO voice actors (one male, one female). And finally fitting ALL those voices into the disc? That's not a small amount of space. If any of you have played Oblivion, which has a comparable amount of voiced dialogue and is a massive game overall? The developers said in an interview that the voiced lines took up HALF of the disc-space. Ho-ly crap. I'm thinking that if Bioware had spent a hundred years on the Mass Effect voice actors, it still wouldn't have solved the problem that had they had actual complex character/personality based choices, they couldn't fit this crap in! Their entire disc-space would be left with nothing but Shepard and friends talking to each other.

Now, I actually like Mass Effect, and am fine with Bioware's choice. It has its pluses and minuses. Overall, it is not the choice I prefer. However, that doesn't stop me from liking the game a whole hell of a lot. And besides, Bioware didn't have choices THAT complex in its former games, did it?

Then, I played Dragon Age, and all I could think was: Oh. My. God.

When the female warden talks to Alistair, and he hints at his feelings for her, she can flirt with him, she can tease him, she can be a shy loving girl and be moved by his affections, she can engage him in dirty innuendo. There are so many paths it can go. And none of it is good or evil, or paragon or renegade, or whatever. For the first time, it's complex, it's based on your character, on who your character is. If you want your character to respond a certain way to anything, short of breaking the game's plot, they can do it. I NEVER once felt as if my character was in any way restricted. I ALWAYS felt that he could be exactly who I wanted him to be. My character was a good-hearted, but naive sheltered mage who had spent his entire life in the tower and did not understand the depth of the world outside. And if any random person were to come along and read all of my dialogue choices, they would see this, this would be exactly what they found in my character. It is not "good or evil" or "Lawful or Chaotic" or even "Alistair likes you or Morrigan likes you". It is literally, ENTIRELY, up to you. And despite everything we say about Dragon Age being old-school, that is new. The game is more flexible than anything Bioware has ever made before.

But screw that, of course. Let's advance the game. Voices and cinematics are advanced, right?

In Mass Effect, Bioware decides the way that Sheppard talks, they decide the way that he/she moves, they decide all these character traits about him/her, and the only things you can really change are the decisions he/she makes. Other than the morals of the character in question, Bioware has already come up with pretty much everything, you just need to play along.

Furthermore, the "ten years" thing sounds like it'll kill flexibility, too. Let's think about it this way: if you make any IMPORTANT choices, within ten years time, they would effect things, greatly. There were a lot of choices in DA:O where there were multiple outcomes that DIDN'T ACTUALLY effect your game experience that much, because of the fact that they would only change things by the last few hours and the mostly written up epilogue. For that reason, Bioware could come up with a lot of choices, since the consequences of each were only as complex as some changed cutscenes and a few paragraphs of text. But if Bioware needs to change the entire gameworld due to some of these choices, the number of options for the once very complex problems in DA:O (don't you remember when you had like four options?) would become greatly simplified. This means that all of these choices will probably be simplified to "A or B". Bioware has enough manpower to do A, and to do B, but I'm not so sure about a C or D.

So in conclusion. Yes, I prefer the "archaic" Dragon Age system more. And I still do like the Mass Effect system. However, I believe that Mass Effect should stick to Mass Effect, and Dragon Age should stick to Dragon Age. If Dragon Age becomes Mass Effect, there's no Dragon Age left. With this choice, Bioware is not just "making Dragon Age more like Mass Effect", they're also killing the ultra-flexible dialogue system that that DA:O had, which, in my opinion, is the single best one they've ever made.

[Gatt9]

LPPrince wrote...

Others, on the other hand, are claiming its doom for us all. THOSE are the ones I say are blind hating, because that's exactly what they're doing.

Actually,  for the most part,  that's what is happening.  If you'll allow me...

As I commented in another thread,  the gaming industry has become a blockbuster driven industry.  If it isn't going to sell vast numbers of units,  the publishers don't want to hear about it.

The problem is,  this is the path to stagnation.  Game X sold 10 million units,  so lots of people must want X,  so the next game must be just like X.  Never mind that there's 3 million people who would buy Idea Y,  that's not 10 million,  so it's not good enough.

This is what's been occuring since the early 2000's.  A number of games sold fairly well,  like Evil Genius,  or Shattered Union,  but didn't get follow ups,  because they didn't sell well enough.  Meanwhile,  Fallout and Mass Effect get coverted to shooters,  because shooters sell.

So what ends up happening is that we ultimately only get a few variations of a tiny number of games.  Doom,  Starcraft,  and GTA.  Everything else goes by the wayside.  So variety becomes virtually nill.  Which is pretty much where we are today.  Dang near everything at E3 was one of those games,  the vast majority a sequel,  and a good percentage has a pretty big number after it.

Hollywood knows this is the recipe for disaster,  which is why they budget appropriately and support all genres.  Horror isn't traditionally a major seller,  not compared to Action,  yet Hollywood makes sure it's supported.  Same thing with Fantasy.  Prior to Lord of the Rings,  Fantasy was a B movie subject,  but Hollywood took a chance,  and it paid off huge.  Comic Books were the same prior to X-men.  Now we get Iron Man,  who truthfully was probably a mystery to the majority who walked into the theater.

So Gaming drives headlong on the Blockbuster kick,  losing more and more variety by the year.  Thing is,  you can't keep selling the same thing over and over,  eventually people grow tired of it.

Which is *very* likely the reason behind the major drops in sales this year.  In fact,  I'd bet if you cut out the music game sales out of the past few years,  you'd find the same trend for a couple years now.

End result's going to be a crash,  and it's coming sooner rather than later.  There isn't a studio left that can survive a bad year safely now,  except Microsoft and Sony.  Activision could,  but they'd have to make massive layoffs to do it and live on WoW for awhile.  EA definitely cannot,  they made a massive error in the early 2000's by trying to switch to mostly MMO gaming and eating 5 failures(Earth and Beyond,  Need For Speed Online,  and at least 3 known attempts at a Ultima Online sequel). 

So yes,  Doom's coming,  it has to. 

(Historical note:  If one researches gaming history,  one will find this is actually a component of a repetitive cycle.  After the Atari crash,  the C64 became the gaming platform,  until it stagnated by released a multitude of clones.  Then the NES rose,  took over,  and was replaced by the Genesis and SNES.  These were characterized primarily by Super Mario clones and a oft-repeated RPG formula.  They crashed in the early 90's to be replaced by PC's.  Which were succeeded by the PSx and later X-box.  These platforms are dominated by Shooters and GTA clones.  They're due and overdue to repeat the cycle and crash on their inability to provide variety.  The penduluem will again swing to PC gaming,  especially with Moore's Law failing providing longevity.)

[Flamesz]

IronVanguard wrote...

Yes, but Final Fantasy XIII sucks.

Um, no it doesn't. People just moaned because it was linear and it took awhile to get used to.