Aller au contenu

Photo

Re: Wasn't DA:O successful?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
152 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Kalfear

Kalfear
  • Members
  • 1 475 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

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.)


Well said Gatts, but its lost on who you replying to. He she it thinks DA:O 3.5 million sales were bad sales and thats why the changes coming! Its words, not mine.

The fact DA:O outsold ME2 is lost on the person.

Your dead right on the preceived sales figures and I do see a crash coming. Sooner then later.
I know im getting ALOT more picky with how I spend my entertainment dollars, and im not alone!

I have already decided I wont be buying ME3 because of how ME2 was handled and im pretty close to writing off DA2 as well to be honest! Cant get a straight answer to a simple question it seems no matter how nicely and politely I word the question while poster that blindly gush about a product they know equally little about with but praise anyways without thinking do get answers. Not impressed at all.

Personally, if I had a title that I could count on 3.5 million sales, as a businessman Id be happier then a pig in dodo, compared to doing rabip sweeping changes and hoping I could get 5 million but at the real chance of doing less then the projected 3.5 mill.
I just dont get the mind set here but what ever, I am but a peon in the grand scheme of things.
I hope those that are openly cheering previous customers deptartures are ready to buy 2 or 3 copies each to replace those lost sales.

Anyways, good post. If I was in charge id be creating for the 3.5 mill base and making smaller changes that been actually suggested by the bulk of the player base to improve my products to grow sales that way!

You know, mind numbing moves like making the DLC 1 hour for every dollar charged so players getting their money worth! Make the money by quanity downloading it. You know 1 mill and $1.00/per hour rather then 25,000 at $3.00/per hour ration! But stuff like that just doesnt seem to connect with anyone sadly!

#127
Ponce de Leon

Ponce de Leon
  • Members
  • 4 030 messages

IronVanguard wrote...

Also, graphics are overrated.

(now I skip 6 pages but...)
Amen to that.
But nowadays it's basically a must for an important company like BioWare to do a game with good graphics. Mainly because of all those mindless people that think Graphics is the most important part and story is nothing.
And insult me if there is anyone here, if someone thinks that, that someone is mindless.

#128
Onyx Jaguar

Onyx Jaguar
  • Members
  • 13 003 messages
Graphics these days suck, all homogenized

#129
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 962 messages

Kalfear wrote...

Well said Gatts, but its lost on who you replying to. He she it thinks DA:O 3.5 million sales were bad sales and thats why the changes coming! Its words, not mine.

1. The fact DA:O outsold ME2 is lost on the person.

2. Your dead right on the preceived sales figures and I do see a crash coming. Sooner then later.
I know im getting ALOT more picky with how I spend my entertainment dollars, and im not alone!

3. I have already decided I wont be buying ME3 because of how ME2 was handled and im pretty close to writing off DA2 as well to be honest! Cant get a straight answer to a simple question it seems no matter how nicely and politely I word the question while poster that blindly gush about a product they know equally little about with but praise anyways without thinking do get answers. Not impressed at all.

4. Personally, if I had a title that I could count on 3.5 million sales, as a businessman Id be happier then a pig in dodo, compared to doing rabip sweeping changes and hoping I could get 5 million but at the real chance of doing less then the projected 3.5 mill.
I just dont get the mind set here but what ever, I am but a peon in the grand scheme of things.
I hope those that are openly cheering previous customers deptartures are ready to buy 2 or 3 copies each to replace those lost sales.

5. Anyways, good post. If I was in charge id be creating for the 3.5 mill base and making smaller changes that been actually suggested by the bulk of the player base to improve my products to grow sales that way!

You know, mind numbing moves like making the DLC 1 hour for every dollar charged so players getting their money worth! Make the money by quanity downloading it. You know 1 mill and $1.00/per hour rather then 25,000 at $3.00/per hour ration! But stuff like that just doesnt seem to connect with anyone sadly!


Dissecting and Numbering the post so I can respond to it piece by piece-

1. Got proof? Ecael looked it up earlier and brought up a good point- Divide sales by consoles, because ME/ME2 is PC/360 while DAO is PC/360/PS3, so you can't use the total numbers. And she proved that ME2(definitely) and I believe ME1(not sure on this one) outsold DAO on the 360. So please, try again.

2. So you're assuming. Yeah, that couldn't possibly bite you in the A at some point. :?

3. You're writing off ME3 and almost DA2 without knowing a damn thing about one of them and knowing extremely little about the other. That's moronic. As for me praising the game, I haven't. I'm hopeful, sure, but I have yet to say its the best game ever, like you have said its doomed.

4. People tend to want to make more money. Cause you know, that's COMMON SENSE. If this is the way Bioware makes more money, by all means, they'll do it. And there you go assuming the game's gonna lose so many sales. Please get over your opinion. Its not fact.

5. If 3.5 million people bought your game, and you improved little bits of it, guess what- only those 3.5 million are going to get your sequel. If you want bigger sales numbers(and by God I hope you do), you need to change things up to cater to a newer market while at the same time keeping the old market happy. Its a balance they're currently working on. We'll see if they succeed or not.

#130
BallaZs

BallaZs
  • Members
  • 448 messages

druid126 wrote...

Yes, yes it was. So why change it? Well... wasn't Pacman successful? Wasn't Tetris successful? Wasn't Half-Life 1 successful? Wasn't Final Fantasy I successful? Wasn't Golden-Eye successful? Wasn't Pong successful? Wasn't Asteroids successful? I could go on. I really could, this list is near endless, only I begin to get away from the point.

Games evolve. They change. Graphics upgrade, weapons upgrade, ammo reload styles upgrade, stories change, characters change, and all plots move forward or die off. Could you imagine if all games were the same as they were in the 80's? In the 90's? In the early 2000's? What if no developer took risks to try and change the way the player interacts with games? What if all devs stuck with the status quo because they were "successful"? Every game you play would be a tired rehash of older games simply because they were successful.

Why did Mass Effect take off? Was it, it's story? Possibly. But the one selling feature that I've used to interest my friends in to playing it is the dialogue system. Why is that, you ask? Well quite simply it was revolutionary. Sure, other games had voiced main characters. Other games had dialogue choices. But Mass Effect was the first game that took choices, added a voice to it, and brought your character to life. It successfully (at least to me) blended cinema and action, without destroying interaction. Maybe you don't like the story. Maybe you don't like having a voice. Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's trying to enjoy your text based adventures on windows 3.1. Whatever your reasons for this complaint it needs to be accepted that all things change or die.

Sure DA 2 could be a clone of DA:O. I'm sure the hardcore fans would love that. But what would DA 3 look like? The same? What about DA 4? DA 5? Are we going to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now playing a game from 2009? Would you want your graphics to never update? Would you like your characters to never evolve? Would you really, truly, honestly, prefer that there be no fresh blood injected in to these plots? 

Yeah, Hawke is voiced. Yeah, the plot is predetermined with limiting choices. But how free were your choices in DA:O? You couldn't run away from the blight. You could be a dick, sure, but you couldn't truly be evil. You couldn't allow the dragon to destroy the kingdom. You were locked in to a predetermined set of choices from the very beginning of the game. Just like every other game. Except with DA2 BioWare wants to try something new. They want their game to evolve. They want to see a story that spans a decade rather than a few weeks or months.

Most games don't do this, so far I haven't run in to one that does. BioWare wants to make sure they aren't losing money by the time they decide to upgrade the franchise. Before you respond to this post think about it clearly. Mull it over. Really ponder this question:

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

I sincerely hope this post isn't simply ignored or bumped far, far away simply because of the overwhelming complaints. Really think about this issue before you start titling posts "BIOWARE RUINED MY GAME".


Totally right.
It's hard to find open minded ppl like you.
Many childish idiot keep posting that:  I won't buy DA2, I hate that they'll vioce my PC, I hate the Hawke name and some s***t, even if they have the very first infos about the game. I find it Pathetic.
Anyway I belive that DA2 will be epic. I don't mind if I can be Human only. So what? I think we'll get more deeper and more intresting origin story in exchange.
As I've seen so far, the 'fans' want the same game as DA:O was, with the old companions, same dialogue system and combat system, same everything.
Let's just trust in BioWare, and wait for more info.
And u haters out there, stop the whining and posting all that s***t.

#131
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 719 messages

LPPrince wrote...
5. If 3.5 million people bought your game, and you improved little bits of it, guess what- only those 3.5 million are going to get your sequel. 


Actually, somewhat less than that. No game satisfies 100% of the people who bought it. Plenty of folks were disappointed with BG2 because it didn't have the open world of BG1.

Other than that, terrific post.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juillet 2010 - 03:38 .


#132
Rubbish Hero

Rubbish Hero
  • Members
  • 2 830 messages

druid126 wrote...

Yes, yes it was. So why change it? Well... wasn't Pacman successful? Wasn't Tetris successful? Wasn't Half-Life 1 successful? Wasn't Final Fantasy I successful? Wasn't Golden-Eye successful? Wasn't Pong successful? Wasn't Asteroids successful? I could go on. I really could, this list is near endless, only I begin to get away from the point.

Games evolve.


Rather than change the formula, Halflife added to it with physics.
There is a diffrent between "Changing" and "Evolving".

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 11 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .


#133
OriginsIsBest

OriginsIsBest
  • Members
  • 696 messages
I thought it was I heard more about Dragon age than Mass effect.

I loved Dragon age Origins

But when I bought Mass effect I just didnt like it.

#134
Mdfitz

Mdfitz
  • Members
  • 107 messages
it seems like their giving us less choices at the beginning of the game.





does that mean they are giving us more throughout the game

#135
Merci357

Merci357
  • Members
  • 1 321 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

(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.)


Some of the markets did indeed crash due to oversaturation of mediocre/bad clone games, that's a given, but mostly it's just part of the reason. However, when the C64 died, it was also because it reached the end of it's technical lifecycle. The Amiga/Atari ST were already on the market, way more expensive at first, but also way more capable. So it's only natural people moved on. This repeated itself a few times, like when Nintendo sticked for to long to the SNES (and to the cartridge system), so the PSX came. Of course, the late SNES games were most often boring repetitions, but the PSX was simply much more capable. Some old games, but way more shiny.
The last sentence is the interesting one - Moore's Law failing. That's new, that's the turning point, I guess. Not only gaming itself became more mainstream (think hardcore vs. casual gamers), but you can't make games "better" anymore by stepping up one hardware generation. Where we go on from here, I don't now.

#136
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 962 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
5. If 3.5 million people bought your game, and you improved little bits of it, guess what- only those 3.5 million are going to get your sequel. 


Actually, somewhat less than that. No game satisfies 100% of the people who bought it. Plenty of folks were disappointed with BG2 because it didn't have the open world of BG1.

Other than that, terrific post.


True, but that would be subjective and up to chance.

Still, thank you. And Druid made a great post earlier, I thank him for that.

#137
FlyinElk212

FlyinElk212
  • Members
  • 2 598 messages

druid126 wrote...

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?


Of course not. But the fact of the mater is, Dragon Age 2 isn't coming out in 30 years. And yeah, within the next year or two of my life that it'd take for THIS game to come out, I would love to play the type of game I came to know and love. You bring up very solid points, but your logic is still flawed. Here me out--

I am by no means stating that Bioware should never change anything...but initial information indicates that drastic gameplay changes are coming. From a marketing standpoint, it makes no sense for Bioware to change Dragon Age's brand promise: people who want dialogue wheels and third person narrative should buy their Mass Effect products, people who want to put themselves in the action, in a quasi-true RPG fashion, should buy their Dragon Age products, because that's what Dragon Age's brand has promised the buyer with its previous installment.

In a sense, Bioware's creating two brands with the same brand promise: an interactive, third person RPG tale. What good comes out of that? They're now covering less target audience ground than they were before. Mind you, this analysis is only in the back of my mind, as I know it's still way too early to tell, but from what I'm see...the backlash from Dragon Age fans makes sense and is justified.

#138
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 962 messages

Rubbish Hero wrote...

druid126 wrote...

Yes, yes it was. So why change it? Well... wasn't Pacman successful? Wasn't Tetris successful? Wasn't Half-Life 1 successful? Wasn't Final Fantasy I successful? Wasn't Golden-Eye successful? Wasn't Pong successful? Wasn't Asteroids successful? I could go on. I really could, this list is near endless, only I begin to get away from the point.

Games evolve.


Rather than change the formula, Halflife added to it with physics.
There is a diffrent between "Changing" and "Evolving".


Yes, there is a difference.

"Changing" would occur in a single title.

"Evolving" would occur over the course of a series.

Dragon Age is evolving AND changing.

#139
druid126

druid126
  • Members
  • 46 messages

FlyinElk212 wrote...

druid126 wrote...

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?


Of course not. But the fact of the mater is, Dragon Age 2 isn't coming out in 30 years. And yeah, within the next year or two of my life that it'd take for THIS game to come out, I would love to play the type of game I came to know and love. You bring up very solid points, but your logic is still flawed. Here me out--

I am by no means stating that Bioware should never change anything...but initial information indicates that drastic gameplay changes are coming. From a marketing standpoint, it makes no sense for Bioware to change Dragon Age's brand promise: people who want dialogue wheels and third person narrative should buy their Mass Effect products, people who want to put themselves in the action, in a quasi-true RPG fashion, should buy their Dragon Age products, because that's what Dragon Age's brand has promised the buyer with its previous installment.

In a sense, Bioware's creating two brands with the same brand promise: an interactive, third person RPG tale. What good comes out of that? They're now covering less target audience ground than they were before. Mind you, this analysis is only in the back of my mind, as I know it's still way too early to tell, but from what I'm see...the backlash from Dragon Age fans makes sense and is justified.


In all fairness, when DA:O came out I heard from a lot of people, some who played and some who refused to play for this very reason, that DA:O looked and felt dated. Especially because of it's conversation. In my opinion it was already needing of an upgrade.

#140
IronVanguard

IronVanguard
  • Members
  • 620 messages

LPPrince wrote...

1. Got proof? Ecael looked it up earlier and brought up a good point- Divide sales by consoles, because ME/ME2 is PC/360 while DAO is PC/360/PS3, so you can't use the total numbers. And she proved that ME2(definitely) and I believe ME1(not sure on this one) outsold DAO on the 360. So please, try again.

2. So you're assuming. Yeah, that couldn't possibly bite you in the A at some point. :?

3. You're writing off ME3 and almost DA2 without knowing a damn thing about one of them and knowing extremely little about the other. That's moronic. As for me praising the game, I haven't. I'm hopeful, sure, but I have yet to say its the best game ever, like you have said its doomed.

4. People tend to want to make more money. Cause you know, that's COMMON SENSE. If this is the way Bioware makes more money, by all means, they'll do it. And there you go assuming the game's gonna lose so many sales. Please get over your opinion. Its not fact.

5. If 3.5 million people bought your game, and you improved little bits of it, guess what- only those 3.5 million are going to get your sequel. If you want bigger sales numbers(and by God I hope you do), you need to change things up to cater to a newer market while at the same time keeping the old market happy. Its a balance they're currently working on. We'll see if they succeed or not.

Makes sense: ME is more of a shooter, and X-box fans sterotypical like shooters. RPGs have a large PC following, so DA probably won there.

And while they are entitled to make money, that, in no way, will make fans less mad. Honestly, angry people will be angry.

#141
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 962 messages

IronVanguard wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

1. Got proof? Ecael looked it up earlier and brought up a good point- Divide sales by consoles, because ME/ME2 is PC/360 while DAO is PC/360/PS3, so you can't use the total numbers. And she proved that ME2(definitely) and I believe ME1(not sure on this one) outsold DAO on the 360. So please, try again.

2. So you're assuming. Yeah, that couldn't possibly bite you in the A at some point. :?

3. You're writing off ME3 and almost DA2 without knowing a damn thing about one of them and knowing extremely little about the other. That's moronic. As for me praising the game, I haven't. I'm hopeful, sure, but I have yet to say its the best game ever, like you have said its doomed.

4. People tend to want to make more money. Cause you know, that's COMMON SENSE. If this is the way Bioware makes more money, by all means, they'll do it. And there you go assuming the game's gonna lose so many sales. Please get over your opinion. Its not fact.

5. If 3.5 million people bought your game, and you improved little bits of it, guess what- only those 3.5 million are going to get your sequel. If you want bigger sales numbers(and by God I hope you do), you need to change things up to cater to a newer market while at the same time keeping the old market happy. Its a balance they're currently working on. We'll see if they succeed or not.

Makes sense: ME is more of a shooter, and X-box fans sterotypical like shooters. RPGs have a large PC following, so DA probably won there.

And while they are entitled to make money, that, in no way, will make fans less mad. Honestly, angry people will be angry.


I wouldn't be so quick to say console-users are automatically shooter fans. It is a stereotype, but that stereotype needs to die.

I'm sure DA outsold both ME and ME2 on PC, for that very reason you stated. 

And of course it isn't going to make people feel any better. But they need to understand that Bioware at the core is a BUSINESS.

They're out to make money. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing what they do. They're just really friggen good at making amazing games, and they love their jobs, so we can all be happy-cheery with them.

#142
druid126

druid126
  • Members
  • 46 messages

Anathemic wrote...

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


Well, so far I haven't called anyone a vocal minority. That was another poster. Yeah, DA:O may have been a safe haven for those of you who disliked voiced RPGs. Like I said earlier no change would mean a dead franchise. You may like it for now and 30 years from now you might still be playing games with no voice overs. But status quo is not revolutionary. Status quo is not interesting. Status quo doesn't earn awards or build a huge fan base. Keeping this game the same would eventually cause it to peter out and die. Oh sure there'd still be a couple thousand fans supporting it. But no where near the 3.5 million that bought it.

I support the game because I love the story, not the mechanics. I love the plots and character development, not the buttons I press. The User Interface is just *one* way of many to interact with the world. It shouldn't kill your enjoyment of the world if it diverges from the original. Every post here against my "change is the natural of order of things" has been "VO's are bad and the Dialogue Wheel is going to kill my favourite game". But if your sole enjoyment of an RPG is contingent on *which* button you press to interact with the world, when devs flat out told you interaction will be the same as it was before, then how can anyone claim they actually enjoyed the game? That they actually cared about role playing? That they cared about it's story and plot? Because right now it's just sounds like obstinence  in the face of change. 

#143
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages
Keep in mind that 3.5 million sales is not equivalent to 3.5*game price in profit because you have to discount the amount it cost to produce the game in addition to actually living off that profit until you release (and fund) the next game. Part of that investment comes from parent companies which is why you see comapnies like Bioware owned by EA, but generally speaking the $$ don't depend on just the unit sales but also the cost of production and development cycle.

#144
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

druid126 wrote...
I support the game because I love the story, not the mechanics. I love the plots and character development, not the buttons I press. The User Interface is just *one* way of many to interact with the world. It shouldn't kill your enjoyment of the world if it diverges from the original. Every post here against my "change is the natural of order of things" has been "VO's are bad and the Dialogue Wheel is going to kill my favourite game". But if your sole enjoyment of an RPG is contingent on *which* button you press to interact with the world, when devs flat out told you interaction will be the same as it was before, then how can anyone claim they actually enjoyed the game? That they actually cared about role playing? That they cared about it's story and plot? Because right now it's just sounds like obstinence  in the face of change. 


I agree with you, but for those that disagree with us, the issue is tha they do not actually like the plot and character development, not in the way we do.

For a lot of so-called 'traditional' RPG fans, what they want is a game that is like a sandbox in characterization; some set pieces they can anchor a character design to, after which they can use their imagination to think of tens of different characters. It is a very... what is going on on the screen is not the sole part of my gaming experience.

Personally, I can't really enjoy anything like that. But some people do. A lot. So preventing them from coming up with 60 different character concepts, and giving them one is a huge loss. I don't care about the character concept but the degree to which I can customize it because that's what makes it my own, and if I happen not to like the character concept I won't play the game, but we have a very different outlook.

#145
druid126

druid126
  • Members
  • 46 messages

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you, but for those that disagree with us, the issue is tha they do not actually like the plot and character development, not in the way we do.

For a lot of so-called 'traditional' RPG fans, what they want is a game that is like a sandbox in characterization; some set pieces they can anchor a character design to, after which they can use their imagination to think of tens of different characters. It is a very... what is going on on the screen is not the sole part of my gaming experience.

Personally, I can't really enjoy anything like that. But some people do. A lot. So preventing them from coming up with 60 different character concepts, and giving them one is a huge loss. I don't care about the character concept but the degree to which I can customize it because that's what makes it my own, and if I happen not to like the character concept I won't play the game, but we have a very different outlook.


Dungeons and Dragons is always available to play.

#146
Hulk Hsieh

Hulk Hsieh
  • Members
  • 511 messages
Well, I know one company that is smart enough to always keep their successful formula.
EA with their sports games and the SIMs.
Bioware should learn to be a proper EA studio and pull an EA-Sports with DA2.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 11 juillet 2010 - 05:13 .


#147
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 719 messages

In Exile wrote...
 So preventing them from coming up with 60 different character concepts, and giving them one is a huge loss. 


Did DAO actually support 60 different character concepts? Will DA2 really only support one? Both of those figures sound preposterous to me, but I won't presume to guess what you mean by a "character concept./"

#148
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

AlanC9 wrote...
Did DAO actually support 60 different character concepts? Will DA2 really only support one? Both of those figures sound preposterous to me, but I won't presume to guess what you mean by a "character concept./"


I was being intentionally hyperbolic. I happen to actuallyt think DA:O supported only  one character concept with a few variations, and people are just really good at tricking themselves into thinking one is many if there is no VO.

But what I'm trying to convey is the sentiment, and this is what the other side feels. Being an optimistic and diplomatic person, I'd hope I can manage to convince some that VO is not the death of roleplaying they think it is; it has everything to do with their presumption about what role-playing should be, and wanting to force that on others (e.g. the using your imagination bit).

#149
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 719 messages
Gotcha, In Exile. The problem with using hyperbole on this board is that a lot of people really do believe preposterous things

#150
Gambient

Gambient
  • Members
  • 189 messages

Flamesz wrote...

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.


Umm, yes it does. But thats a discussion for another time.

Modifié par Gambient, 11 juillet 2010 - 05:42 .